Practice Tests - 5 - ACT MCQ

We see that the subject of the sentence is "He." The sentence goes on to list two predicates: (1) "graduated with honors" and (2) "began his career as a math teacher." When we have two predicates  (i.e. a "complex predicate") and one subject, the predicates must be separated by a conjunction (such as "and" or "but"), and there should not be a comma between the two predicates.

The correct way to express the sentence is "He graduated with honors and began his career as a math teacher." The correct answer is therefore "honors and." Each of the other answer choices introduces unnecessary punctuation between the two predicates.

The correlative conjunctions “either” and “or” get paired together here. In "either . . . or" sentences, the two options being discussed (in this case, going to the toy store and going to the ice cream parlor) must be presented in a grammatically parallel way so that the words following “either” and the words following “or” are parallel phrases. In this case, “to the toy store” and “to the ice cream parlor” are the only options that are parallel; otherwise, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

Because the second independent clause contradicts the first in this compound sentence it is more correct to separate the two with the conjunction "but," not "and."

Subordination problems happen when there are two subordinate clauses and no main clause. The "because" and "so" in the original sentence clash with each other. We only need one. That way, the clause from which a subordinating conjunction is omitted becomes an independent clause, and we need at least one independent clause in the sentence for it to be complete.

The sentence is written in such a way that it makes it seem like "the wallpaper" was "moving into his new house." The sentence needs to be rearranged to show that the "homeowner" is actually the one doing the moving. The only answer choice that does this is "the homeowner completely renovated the wallpaper."

The placement of "only" in the sentence makes the sentence confusing, as it seems as if the subject were "only" one of many "third drivers" "to win ten races in one season," which doesn't make sense. The sentence only makes sense if it suggests that the driver in question was just "the third driver" ever to achieve the feat. The answer choice that correctly deploys "only" is, "He was only the third driver to win ten races in one season."

The list contained in the underlined portion of the sentence features unlike elements, meaning that the verb describes unlike objects. The list needs to feature a parallel structure of elements that each have the same tense and word form. The only answer choice that features a correct parallel structure is "who could write, sell, and market their products."

The underlined phrase needs to be improved to make the second part of the sentence contain a complete sentence. As it is currently written, the sentence does not contain a subject. "The reduction of all stockpiles" is the only answer choice which makes the sentence complete by providing it with a subject. "All stockpiling reduction" may look like a tempting answer, but it does not convey the notion that the stockpiles are being reduced as well as does "the reduction of all stockpiles," since in "all stockpiling reduction," "stockpiling" is acting as a participle instead of as an object of a preposition.

"Amy" is a singular subject who possesses the favorite show, so the apostrophe should be before the "s," as in "Amy's." It would only make sense to have the apostrophe after the "s" if there were multiple Amys and they all had the same favorite show, which is not the case in this sentence.

Because the first sentence isn’t actually introducing the second sentence but is rather a different thought altogether, a colon isn’t the correct punctuation mark. Instead, a semicolon should be used to separate these two independent clauses. Adding a “however” to the second clause would be redundant, as we already have the word “though” to indicate contrast.