Test: Punctuation - Grade 10 MCQ

To be logical, each independent clause of this sentence must use chronological order; to be clear, each clause must avoid wordy or awkward phrasing. “Found even in ancient Egyptian mummies” is a logically and grammatically correct way to begin the sentence, and this modifying phrase is correctly followed immediately by
the noun it modifies, “the parasitic Guinea worm.” The clauses before and after the semicolon are both independent, as required.
(A) CORRECT. The original sentence is correct as written.
(B) “Being the focus of a global public health campaign since 1986” is an awkward construction that should be replaced by the more direct “became the focus of a global public health campaign in 1986.” The phrases “being …since 1986” and “found even in ancient Egyptian mummies” are presented in an illogical and ungrammatical sequence. The clause before the semicolon is not independent; rather, it is a modifying phrase with nothing to modify. The connecting punctuation should be a comma, to make it clear that “being the focus…mummies” modifies “the parasitic Guinea worm.”
(C) “Having been” suggests that the focus on the disease came chronologically before the worms were found in ancient Egyptian mummies. The semicolon is used correctly only if the clauses before and after the semicolon are each independent. Therefore, the phrase “parasitic Guinea worm” must be used before the semicolon; otherwise, the pronoun “it” has no logical antecedent. Also, "frequency of the parasitic Guinea worm" is incorrect; the frequency cannot be eradicated.
(D) Progressive verb forms “being found” and “having been” illogically suggest continuous action and fail to establish a logical event sequence. Moreover, this choice is expressed in a manner that is wordy and awkward. Also, "frequency of the parasitic Guinea worm" is incorrect; the frequency cannot be eradicated.
(E) Progressive verb forms “Having been found” and “being” illogically suggest continuous action and fail to establish a logical event sequence. Moreover, this choice is expressed in a manner that is wordy and awkward.

The original sentence contains several errors. First, the pronoun "their" logically refers to alpacas; however, since the word alpacas' is in possessive form, it is an awkward antecedent for any pronoun (although it is technically legal to refer to a possessive noun with a possessive pronoun such as "their").
Second, the singular verb "fetches" is paired with the plural noun phrase "five pounds of fleece." Third, the use of the semicolon is improper. A semicolon can correctly be used to separate two independent clauses (subject + verb). Here, however, what follows the semicolon is not a clause since it can not stand alone as a sentence.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice does not remedy the pronoun issue, merely replacing "their" with "its". The "its" now seems to refer to "fleece"; however, it is not the market value of the fleece to which the Alpacas' fleece is being compared. This choice also does not correct the subject-verb or semicolon problems.
(C) This choice does not remedy the pronoun issue, merely replacing "their" with "its". The "its" now seems to refer to "fleece"; however, it is not the market value of the fleece to which the Alpacas' fleece is being compared.
This choice does fix the semicolon issue. Nevertheless, the construction "while... even though..." is awkward, since it presents two successive contrasts. The subject-verb issue ("pounds fetch") has been corrected.
(D) CORRECT. The pronoun issue is solved by replacing the pronoun "the animal's." The semicolon correctly separates two independent clauses. The "while" correctly separates two contrasting ideas, and the verb "fetch" agrees with "pounds."
(E) The subject-verb disagreement remains ("pounds fetches)". Moreover, describing "worth" as "little" is awkward in this context; a better choice would be "low." Nonetheless, the pronoun issue is remedied by replacing "their" with "the animal's". The semicolon is used correctly here (two clauses).

The original sentence is problematic in its use of the possessive pronoun “its.” The antecedent to “its” is the “labor market,” which incorrectly and illogically suggests that the labor market is somehow possessing or passing government regulations itself. In addition, the original sentence incorrectly uses active rather than passive voice to describe the effects imposed on the "labor market" by government regulations, thus illogically suggesting that the "labor market" itself is stifling functioning, rather than being stifled by other forces.

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) This choice incorrectly uses a comma to connect two independent clauses, thus creating a run-on sentence. Two independent clauses must be connected either by a conjunction, such as “and” or “but,” or by a semicolon.

(C) This choice incorrectly uses “stifled” to modify the labor market itself, as opposed to its functioning. Also, “variously restrict” is awkward; various is used more appropriately to modify "government regulations," rather than the manner in which the regulations restrict worker hiring and firing.

(D) In order to properly use a semicolon, both the clause before and after the semicolon must be independent clauses or sentences, and the clauses must be closely related in meaning. In this choice, the underlined portion, though grammatically correct, does not stand alone as an effective independent clause. Also, the pronoun “its” lacks a clear antecedent.

(E) CORRECT. This answer choice correctly uses the semicolon to connect two independent but closely related clauses. In addition, the pronoun “its” clearly and unambiguously refers to the “labor market.”

The original sentence incorrectly uses a comma to join two independent clauses. As is the case with the two clauses in this sentence (“The relationship…is still unclear” and “this is because some studies show…while others do not”), independent clauses contain a subject and a verb and can stand alone as independent sentences. While
semicolons can join two independent clauses, commas cannot. Further, “this is because” is unnecessarily wordy.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. The semicolon correctly connects two independent clauses. Also, the singular verb “is” agrees in number with the singular subject “relationship.”
(C) The plural verb “are” does not agree in number with the singular subject “relationship.”
(D) While “is” agrees in number with the singular subject “relationship,” the colon is used incorrectly in this choice. Colons must be preceded by independent clauses. Independent clauses contain a subject and a verb and can stand alone as independent sentences. In this case, however, the colon is preceded by “The relationship…is still unclear because,” which is not a clause that can stand alone as an independent sentence.
(E) While the semicolon correctly connects two independent clauses, and while “is” agrees in number with the singular subject “relationship,” “the reason is that” is unnecessarily wordy. The more concise version in answer choice (B) is preferred.

The original sentence correctly uses a colon to connect "three important physical ideas" with the list of these ideas. Also, the listed items "the concept of inertia, the relationship between force and acceleration, and the coupled nature of forces" are concise and parallel: "the concept...the relationship...the coupled nature."
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The semicolon is used incorrectly to connect "three important physical ideas" with the list of these ideas. Semicolons are used only to connect two related ideas that can each stand alone as independent clauses. In this case, "the concept of inertia...that forces were coupled in nature" is not an independent clause. Also, the phrase “and that forces were coupled in nature” is not parallel in structure to “the concept…the relationship.”
(C) The semicolon is used incorrectly to connect "three important physical ideas" with the list of these ideas. Semicolons are used only to connect two related ideas that can each stand alone as independent clauses. In this case, "the concept of inertia...that forces were coupled in nature" is not an independent clause. Also, the phrase “force and acceleration were related” is not parallel in structure to “the concept…and the coupled nature.”
(D) The use of the comma between “physical ideas” and “the concept” incorrectly connects "three important physical ideas" with the list of these ideas. In fact, the comma changes the meaning of the sentence entirely.
Instead of stating that Newton introduced three ideas and then listing these ideas, this sentence implies that Newton introduced four separate things: “three important physical ideas, the concept of inertia, the
relationship between force and acceleration, and the coupled nature of forces.” The use of the comma inadvertently makes all four items equal members of the list. In addition, “he also introduced” is unnecessarily wordy and breaks up the parallel structure of the list of items.
(E) The phrase “three important ideas that were physical in nature” is unnecessarily wordy. The preferred phrase, because of its concision, is “three important physical ideas.”

The original sentence correctly uses the semicolon to connect two closely related independent clauses, both of which can stand alone. Furthermore, by starting each of the two clauses with time references, "In the 1980s" and "in the 1990s," the original sentence creates a parallel construction. Finally, the reference to “this proportion” unambiguously indicates that the increase in the second part of the sentence refers to the proportion of “advertising revenues” in the structure of profits, thus maintaining clarity of expression.
(A) CORRECT. This answer choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This answer choice suffers from two errors. First, the verb construction “increased by 57%” incorrectly alters the meaning of the original sentence, implying that “57%” indicates the relative magnitude of the increase rather than the new proportion of “advertising revenues” in the structure of “operating profits.” Second, the pronoun
“they” lacks a clear antecedent and could be interpreted to refer either to “operating profits” or to “advertising revenues.”
(C) This answer choice creates a run-on sentence by joining two independent clauses with a comma, rather than with a semicolon or with a connecting conjunction. Further, the pronoun “they” lacks a clear antecedent and could be interpreted to refer either to “operating profits” or to “advertising revenues.”
(D) This answer choice incorrectly uses a semicolon to connect two clauses, only one of which can stand alone. The phrase “increasing to 57% in the 1990s” is not an independent clause and cannot follow the semicolon. Further ore, by moving the time reference “in the 1990s” from the beginning of the second clause to the
end, this answer choice violates parallelism with the non-underlined portion of the sentence that begins with another time reference “In the 1980s.” This question involves parallelism – ELUSIVE at first sight.
(E) In this answer choice, the relative pronoun “which” is used incorrectly. Clauses introduced by the relative pronoun “which” can refer only to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the relative pronoun “which” refers to “a typical local newspaper,” thus illogically suggesting that “a typical local newspaper” was the subject of the increase. Finally, by moving the time reference “in the 1990s” from the beginning of the second clause to the end, this answer choice does not maintain parallel structure with the non-underlined portion of the sentence that begins with the time reference “In the 1980s.”

A semicolon is used to separate 2 clauses that can stand alone. The semicolon is used incorrectly here because the first clause--“Congestion pricing, the practice of charging a fee for driving into the busiest areas of a city at the busiest times;”--cannot stand by itself. In addition, the phrase “more support from economists than do
politicians” nonsensically suggests that the comparison is between “congestion pricing” and “politicians”, incorrectly indicating that economists support the former more than they do the latter. In fact, the sentence intends to compare the level of support for congestion pricing among economists to the level of support for
congestion pricing among politicians.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice correctly removes the semicolon and the word “it” and replaces them with a comma, thereby creating one complete sentence. The phrase “the practice of charging a fee for driving into the busiest areas of a city at the busiest times” becomes a modifier set off by commas. In addition, by repeating the word
“among,” this choice clarifies that support for congestion pricing “among economists” is being compared to that “among politicians.”
(C) By repeating the word “among,” this choice clarifies that support for congestion pricing “among economists” is being compared to that “among politicians.” However, this choice incorrectly uses a semicolon, which can only be used with an independent clause. The clause “Congestion pricing, the practice of charging a fee for driving into
the busiest areas of a city at the busiest times” is not independent because it cannot stand by itself as a sentence.
(D) This choice correctly removes the semicolon and the word “it” and replaces them with a comma, thereby creating one complete sentence. The phrase “the practice of charging a fee for driving into the busiest areas of a city at the busiest times” becomes a modifier set off by commas. However, the phrase “more support from
economists than do politicians” nonsensically suggests that the comparison is between “congestion pricing” and “politicians”, incorrectly indicating that economists support the former more than they do the latter. In fact, the sentence intends to compare the level of support for congestion pricing among economists to the level of
support for congestion pricing among politicians.
(E) By repeating the word “among,” this choice clarifies that support for congestion pricing “among economists” is being compared to that “among politicians.” However, this choice incorrectly keeps the word "it" while replacing the semicolon with a comma. This creates a run-on sentence in that the subject is unnecessarily repeated
("Congestion pricing . . . it has more support").

Parallelism: Beginning – leading.
The original sentence utilizes a semicolon, the proper use of which has two requirements: 1. The clauses before and after the semicolon must be able to function as independent sentences; and 2. the clauses must be closely related in terms of subject matter. Here, the second clause refers back to the first clause, both requirements are satisfied, and the semicolon is used properly. However, the verb form in the second clause is nonparallel to the verb form in the 1st clause (“beginning . . . leads”). Though the lack of parallelism is grammatically permissible between two independent clauses, the construction is awkward. Additionally, “the growing pension liabilities” in the 1st part of the sentence is incorrect in its use of the article “the,” as the pension liabilities were not referenced earlier in the sentence.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) Here, the plural pronoun “their” is used correctly, referring to the plural antecedent “municipal governments.” However, the second clause “leading local politicians . . .” does not function as an independent sentence, making the use of the semicolon improper.
(C) In this answer choice, the verbs are not parallel (“beginning . . . leads”). As a result, the second part of the sentence is awkward and incorrect, as the use of a comma instead of a semicolon means that both verbs now appear in the same  sentence. Also, “the growth in their pension liabilities” is wordy.
(D) CORRECT. The plural pronoun “their” is properly used to refer to the plural antecedent “municipal governments,” and the verb “leading” is parallel to the verb “beginning” in the non-underlined portion of the sentence.
(E) This answer choice is problematic because the verbs are not parallel (“beginning . . . leads”). As a result the second part of the sentence is awkward and incorrect, as the use of a comma instead of a semicolon means that both verbs now appear in the same sentence.