Sentence Correction

Of the top-grossing films of the 1980s, only a few, having a compliance with MPAA standards, could be seen by children without parental guidance.

Of the topgro ssin g film s of the 198 0s, onl ya few , hav ing a co mpl ianc e wit h MP AA stan dar ds,

Of the topgro ssin g film s of the 198 0s, onl

few , whi ch co mpl ied wit Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job discrimination hcase must prove not only that the employer lied about the reasons for dismissal MP but also that those reasons were discriminatory, plaintiffs in such cases fear that AA they will have no higher court that they can appeal to when their cases are stan decided in lower courts. dar ds,

O nly a few of the topgro ssin g film s of the 198 0s, co mpl yin g wit h MP AA stan dar ds

O nly a

of the topgro ssin g film s of the 198 0s, in whi ch the MP AA stan dar ds wer e co mpl ied wit h,

O nly a few of the topgro ssin g film s of the 198 0s co mpl ied wit h MP AA stan

that the y can app eal to whe n thei r cas es are

to whi ch to app eal afte r thei r cas es hav e bee n

ds,

11. Caesarea was Herod’s city, founded as a Romanized counterweight to Hebraic Jerusalem, and being such it was regarded with loathing by the devout. (A) being such (B) as such (C) for this (D) so (E) so being

13. Shortly after George Bernard Shaw joined the Fabian Society, he took the position, which he held for the rest of his life, that income should be literally and absolutely equal for everybody, proclaiming with Marx that poverty was a crime and the capitalism robbery. (A) the position, which he held for the rest of his life, that income should be literally and absolutely equal for everybody, (B) the position, and held it for the rest of his life, that income should be literally and absolutely equal for everybody, (C) the position, holding it for the rest of his life, of income being literally and absolutely equal for everybody, (D) a position that income must be literally and absolutely equal for everybody, and he held it for the rest of his life, (E) a position that income must be literally and absolutely equal for everybody, holding it for the rest of his life and

14. Rather than taking intentions into account, Piaget and other researchers have shown that young children focus on the consequences of behavior. (A) Rather than taking intentions into account, Piaget and other researchers have shown that young children focus on the conse-quences of behavior. (B) Rather than take intentions into account, Piaget and other researchers have shown that young children focus on the conse-quences of behavior. (C) Piaget and other researchers have shown that, rather than take intentions into account, young children focus on the consequences of behavior.

(D) Young children focus on the consequences of behavior rather than taking intentions into account, Piaget and other researchers have shown. (E) Focusing on the consequences of behavior rather than taking intentions into account is what young children do, Piaget and other researchers have shown.

17. According to Herbert Essame, Patton might have accomplished more had he not been held In check his superiors, Alexander in the Mediterranean an isen ower n Europe. (A) had he not been held in check by his superiors (B) had his superiors not held him in check (C) if his superiors had not held him in check (D) if he was not held in check by his superiors (E) when not held in check by his superiors

19. A day-care discussion must begin with the fact ofthere being in America four and onehalf million working women whose children under six years of age are being cared for by others. (A) A day-care discussion must begin with the fact of there being (B) Beginning any discussion of day care must be the fact of there being (C) Any discussion of day care must begin with the fact that there are (D) Any discussion of day care must begin by acknowledging the fact that there exists (E) To begin a discussion of day care there must be an acknowledgement of the fact that

21. Although the counselor recommended that Mary be permitted to work out a sensible schedule, she agreed that there has to be some limits on the freedom given to a thirteenyear-old. (A) there has to be some limits on the freedom given to a thirteen-year-old (B) some limits on the freedom given to a thirteen- year-old had to be (C) there have to be some limitations to be given to the freedom of a thirteen-year-old (D) some limitations on the freedom given to a thirteen-year-old were necessary (E) It is necessary that some limits have to be on the freedom given to a thirteen-year-old

23. As the zoologist can reconstruct an entire skeleton from a jawbone or even a tooth, likewise the ar- chaeologist can begin to reconstruct a vanished civilization from a spindle whorl, a few beads, and a handful of grave dust. (A) As the zoologist can reconstruct an entire skeleton from a jawbone or even a tooth, likewise (B) Like the zoologist who can reconstruct an entire skeleton from a jawbone or even a tooth, just so (C) The zoologist can reconstruct an entire skeleton from a jawbone or even a tooth, just like (D) Reconstructing an entire skeleton from a jaw- bone or even a tooth is to the zoologist like (E) Just as the zoologist can reconstruct an entire skeleton from a jawbone or even a tooth, so

24. Herself the mother of seven children, Mrs. New- land discusses the care of infants in very helpful ways. (A) Herself (B) Herself being (C) In that she is herself (D) Because of being herself (E) Being herself

POINTS TO REMEMBER---------WOULD VS WILL we do use the subjunctive when we are trying to talk about something that is contrary to reality or won't actually happen. We use the future tense to talk about what will actually happen (or, at least, what we believe will actually happen). So, let's say I bought a lottery ticket yesterday, and I didn't win anything. I might say, "If I had won the lottery yesterday, I would have quit my job and moved to Tahiti." I'm using the subjunctive because I didn't actually win the lottery; therefore, I'm not actually quitting my job and moving to Tahiti - that's contrary to reality. Let's say I plan to buy a lottery ticket tomorrow and I don't know yet whether I will win. I might say, "If I win the lottery tomorrow, I will quit my job and move to Tahiti." In this case, I'm telling you what I actually plan to do, for real, if I do win the lottery. So I use future tense - this time, what I'm saying is not contrary to reality. I've described what I really will do if I win.

So, on a problem like the one above, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether the sentence is talking about something contrary to reality or whether it is "predicting the future" - or saying what is actually expected to happen if something else happens first. In this case, it's the latter situation - if the bureaucracy persists in discriminating, the CEOs will, in fact, expose themselves to litigation. Make sense?

MAY VS MIGHT The difference between may and might is subtle. They both indicate that something is possible, but something that may happen is more likely than something that might happen. So you may go to a party if Matt Damon invites you, but you might go to a party if your least favorite cousin invites you. A Mighty Stretch I remember the difference by thinking that I should use might when something is a mighty stretch. Imagine something you'd almost never do, and then imagine someone inviting you to do it. For me, it's white-water rafting. The idea terrifies me. So if someone (such as my former employer) asked me to go on a corporate bonding white-water rafting trip, it's unlikely I would go, but I could be convinced if I thought my job depended on it. But it would be a mighty stretch. So I'd say something like, "Yeah, I might go; and pigs might fly, too." So imagine whatever it is you'd be reluctant to do but wouldn't completely rule out, and then imagine yourself saying in a nice, sarcastic voice, "Yeah, I might." And that should help you remember to use might when the outcome is uncertain or unlikely and to use may when something is more likely to happen, such as attending a nice, safe company lunch where helmets and life vests aren't required. You might clean your room, but you may call your friend later. You might climb Mt. Everest someday, but you may go hiking in the foothills next weekend. Might Is the Past Tense of May There are two exceptions to this rule. First, might is the past tense of may. So you have to use might when you are referring to the past. For example, even if it's likely that Squiggly went to a party last night, Aardvark shouldn't say, “Squiggly may have gone to the party’; he should say, “Squiggly might have gone to the party.” The second exception is a gray area. When you're talking about something not happening, it can be better to use might because people could think you're talking about permission if you use may. This is clearer with an example. If you aren't sure whether you'll go to the party, and you say, "We may not go to the party," it can be misinterpreted to mean you don't have permission to go to the party, particularly in writing, where voice inflections don't help guide the meaning. But if you say, "We might not go to the party," then your meaning is clear. It's the safer bet. So remember to use may when the outcome is likely and might when the outcome is less likely or

uncertain. But also remember that you use might for everything in the past tense. Also, it's OK to use might when you're writing about negative outcomes, even if they're likely outcomes, if using may would make people think you were talking about having permission.

presence/absence of a comma. if the comma is not there, the participial modifier must modify whatever noun directly precedes it. if the comma is there, then the participial modifier is taken to modify the preceding clause as a whole (or particularly the verb of that clause). to wit: tom received the court order [NO COMMA] restricting his movements outside the city --> the court order itself restricts tom's movements. we can infer that tom's movements are already restricted by the court order, regardless of whether he has received it. tom received the court order, restricting his movements outside the city --> tom's movements were not restricted until he received the order. by the way, the second of these sentences isn't that great: tom is the subject of that sentence, so the modifier implies that tom restricted his own movements by receiving the order. to convey the meaning more precisely, you'd say something like tom received the court order, thus activating or bringing into effect restrictions on...'