Grammar: Pronouns and Verbs - New SAT Math - No Calculator

The error in the original sentence is one of subject-verb agreement. The subject is “the number,” with “of earthworms” serving as a prepositional modifier that tells us more about the number. So the correct phrasing should be “the effect that the number (of earthworms) has on soil fertility…” Note that this occurs often on the SAT, with the authors of these questions adding descriptions (often in the form of prepositional modifiers) that include nouns, making your job of determining which subject goes with the verb a difficult one.

"Has on" is therefore correct. Among the other answer choices, "it has on" is incorrect because of the pronoun “it” between the subject, number of earthworms, and verb, has. And "can be to" uses improper diction: something can have an effect on something else, but to say that “its effect can be to” is an improper sentence structure.

This problem asks you to find the proper form of the verb “work,” and showcases a handful of important lessons. For one, note that the verb “works” follows the relative pronoun “who” - this means that this verb applies specifically to the word that “who” is modifying, which is “curator.” So while this sentence involves many nouns, the only one that matters here is “curator.” For that reason, the noun must be singular, eliminating choices "work" and "do work", which are plural.

"Worked" is also incorrect, as the past tense implies that this curator in question has completed this work. Note that everything else in the sentence is ongoing: the traditional view “involves,” the professor “spends.” Therefore to suggest that this one action is completed while the others are ongoing is illogical, making this incorrect. The correct answer is "NO CHANGE", which uses a singular, ongoing verb “works.”

In this example, we need to seek out relevant cues from outside the underlined portion of the sentence to identify what is needed out of the underline. Here, the singular vs. plural nature of the subject, lion vs. lions, is at question. If we continue to the latter portion of the sentence, we find the pronoun “its.” Since “its” refers back to the subject and is singular in nature, the subject, “the lion,” must also be singular. This leaves us with only “the lion rules,” our correct answer, as “lions can be seen ruling,” “lions are able to be seen ruling,” and “lions rule” all utilize the plural subject, “lions.”

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what “was/where/are/have been among the casualties. This case is particularly tricky, as it involves subject-verb inversion - where the subject comes after the verb. The subject of the sentence that is referred to as “among the casualties” is “a cluster.” We describe the cluster as “a cluster of farmhouses” to provide additional context, but the subject “a cluster” itself is singular, despite being accompanied by a plural noun in its modifying context. With this in mind, the only answer option that agrees with the singular subject “a cluster” is “was.” “Were,” “are,” and “have been” are all plural verbs that would require a plural subject.

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on each of our verbs: “have/has” at the start of our answer choices and “worry/worries” at the end. Using both logic and sentence structure, we can identify that what “have recently arrived on retailers’ shelves” are the products. So, the plural verb “have” is appropriate here, and we can eliminate all options that use the singular “has.”

From here, we’ll want to look to the subject taking on the verb “worry/worries.” If we read past or eliminate the modifying phrase “of the new products that ACME Corporation has developed over the past year and that \[have\] recently arrived on retailers’ shelves,” the core of the sentence reads “the quality worry.” Since quality is singular, the verb we need is “worries,” and we can eliminate any answer option that uses the plural “worry.” This leaves us with our correct answer: “have recently arrived on retailers’ shelves worries.”

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on the verb “have/has/have had/had.” If we break down the construction of the sentence, “of the members of the board” is a modifying phrase referring back to the singular noun, “each.” Since “each” is singular, we need singular agreement with our verb. Only “has” provides us with singular agreement, as all other options either use the plural “have” or seem to imply that each member had experience, but does not anymore, an illogical construction.

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on the verb “pose/poses/has posed/has the potential to pose.” In this case, “of a high-sugar diet” is a modifying phrase. The core of the sentence reads “effects poses.” since “effects” are plural, we need the plural verb “pose.” Each of our incorrect answers incorrectly utilizes a singular verb in some form, which does not agree with the plural term “effects.”

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on the verb “are increasing,” or its alternative options. Here, “of applicants” and “to top colleges and universities” are both modifying phrases. The subject of the sentence taking on the verb is “the number.” Since “the number” is singular, we need singular agreement, and only the option “is increasing” provides us with this singular agreement. We can also use logic for much of this question. Is the sentence trying to say that the universities are physically getting bigger? That the applicants are physically growing? Since both of these constructions are illogical, logic can point us to the correct and logical subject “the number.”

In this example, we are being tested on noun-pronoun agreement and parallelism. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what we’re referring to with the pronoun “its/their.” In this case, we have a powerful hint in the non-underlined portion - we already refer to Australia using the pronoun “its.” So, we can see that the collective noun, Australia, is singular. We also need to maintain parallel structure between what follows “not only” and what follows “but also.” Our correct answer, “but also for its” correctly refers to Australia using the singular possessive pronoun “its,” and introduces the phrase that follows the “but also” with the preposition “for” followed by the possessive pronoun and the object of possession - the same structure that follows the “not only” in the sentence.

This question has two distinct decision points: between "phases" and "phase's" and between "its" and "it's." In both cases, the correct answer hinges on whether the word is meant to be possessive. The word "phase" should be plural rather than possessive (the phase of the construction can't possess anything), so the correct form of the word is "phases." Between "its" and "it's," you need to determine whether the word should be possessive (its) or the contraction "it is" (it's). Since you are looking at the construction of the Sagrada Familia, you need the possessive form "its."

The first decision you should make with this problem is whether you need to use the possessive. Since the experiments in question were the ones done by This and Kurti, you need a possessive pronoun to indicate this fact, eliminating "there" and "it's". And since the experiments were done by two people, you need a plural pronoun. Eliminate "its" since it is both singular and refers to non-humans. "Their" is correct since it is possessive and refers to an item belonging to multiple people.

Whenever the SAT gives you a choice between a singular or a plural noun, it is probably testing some form of noun agreement. Just like pronouns have to agree with the nouns they refer to, nouns must also be consistent. The question you should ask yourself, therefore, is what the noun is referring back to. In this case, the word "job" refers to the positions of curators and museum curators. Because multiple people want these jobs (and because there is more than one job), you must have a plural noun here, making "these jobs," the only viable option.

If we look to the answer choices, we can see that this question primarily tests the singular vs. plural nature of the verb was vs. were, and the possessive pronoun its vs. their. Two of our choices, “was well known for their​” and “were well known for its” are illogical given that they utilize a plural verb with a singular pronoun, or a singular verb with a plural pronoun. Since both of these terms refer back to the same subject: “Egyptians.” Since “Egyptians” is a plural subject, we need a plural verb and a plural pronoun, so the correct answer is “were well known for their.” Here, if we remove the modifying phrase “who inhabited ancient Egypt from 1500-1000 B.C.” the agreement of “Egyptians” to “were well known for their” becomes more straightforward and clear.

This example tests us on pronoun ambiguity. In the original construction, and in all constructions that utilize the pronoun “they,” the pronoun is ambiguous and creates a reference error. A reference error exists when it is unclear who or what the pronoun refers back to. In this case, the pronoun “they” could refer back to the managers, or to the employees. Does the manual outline rules for employees about contacting managers while the managers are out of the office, or while the employees are? Because we are uncertain of the pronoun’s antecedent, all answers that utilize “they” can be eliminated, and we’re left with “who are.” “Who are” is logical in this case, as the relative clause opener “who” must logically refer back to the noun or noun phrase before, in this case, managers.

This example tests us on pronoun ambiguity. In the original construction, it is unclear whether “he” refers back to John or James. Since we do not have a clear antecedent for our pronoun, any answer choice that utilizes “he” can be eliminated. In fact, in many cases, we correct pronoun ambiguity by eliminating the pronoun entirely, as the correct answer, “but only the former” has done. By referring to “the former,” the sentence has made it clear that we’re referring to John. The correct answer also includes the logical coordinating conjunction “but” after the comma to connect the two independent clauses in the sentence. Our final incorrect answer, “only the former” fails to include this conjunction and creates a comma splice.

This question primarily tests us on reference and the use of the proper, possessive form “its.” In the sentence, it would be illogical to use the contraction “it’s,” as the sentence is not attempting to say “it gained it is inspiration.” Instead, if we use “its,” the single possessive pronoun to refer to the inspiration Jazz gained. It is also important that we begin the underlined portion with “where,” as “which” illogically refers back to New Orleans and implies that New Orleans gained its inspiration from ragtime and blues. The correct answer, “where it gained its” correctly addresses that New Orleans is the location where Jazz gained the inspiration it possesses.

This example tests us on meaning and pronoun ambiguity. In the original construction, we can clearly see that two things have led to a rebound in the eagle population: prohibitions and the ban of a pesticide. However, our incorrect constructions introduce either the singular pronoun “it” or “its,” or the plural possessive pronoun “their.” This is illogical, as it is unclear whether the pronoun should refer to the bald eagle (an illogical construction) or the United States (a more logical but unclear antecedent. Additionally, “because it has prohibited” introduces a sentence construction error by forming the underlined portion as a verb phrase that does not parallel the rest of the sentence as intended. This leaves us with our original answer, “because prohibitions on.”

This example tests us on pronoun ambiguity and meaning. In the original construction, the underlined portion seems to imply that officials are “threatened by the potential for overpopulation,” since the modifier at the start of the sentence must logically modify what follows. This is illogical, as officials are neither threatened by or limiting “their” population growth. “officials of Central New Jersey has limited its” makes a similar mistake, and also incorrectly attempts to agree “officials” with the singular pronoun “its.” When we begin the underlined portion of the sentence with “Central New Jersey,” rather than “officials,” we correct the modifier error previously described. However, in “Central New Jersey has limited their,” we incorrectly agree the singular noun “Central New Jersey” with the plural pronoun “their.” Our correct answer, “Central New Jersey has limited its” corrects both of these issues by presenting the location itself as threatened and creating proper agreement to that location with the singular pronoun “its.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of singular vs. plural possessive pronouns to refer back to their proper antecedents. In the original construction, “their” illogically attempts to refer back to “the host mother.” This is incorrect, as we need to match a singular possessive pronoun with a singular antecedent, or a plural possessive pronoun with a plural antecedent. Only our correct answer, “host mothers try to identify their own eggs” accomplishes this. We want to be particularly careful when both elements of an agreement or ambiguity-based question are within the underline, as the author of the question could choose to change both components of the agreement at hand, as we see in this example.