Sentence correction & improvement MCQ — 15 Practice Questions with Answers

Explanation

A participial or reduced introductory clause must logically modify the subject of the main clause. In option C, 'After examining the evidence carefully' appears to modify 'the complaint', as if the complaint examined the evidence. That is impossible; a person or authority examined it. A correct version would be: 'After examining the evidence carefully, the inquiry officer found the complaint exaggerated.' The other options place the actor immediately after the introductory phrase, so their modifiers are properly attached.

Explanation

Statement 1 tests the one of the + plural noun pattern. The noun after the phrase should be plural, so criteria is correct, but the grammatical subject of the verb is one; therefore the verb must be singular: is. Statement 2 tests proximity agreement in a neither...nor structure. In traditional exam grammar, the verb agrees with the nearer subject. Since district officers is plural and stands nearest to the verb, were consulted is the correct form. Only option A corrects both sentences without introducing a new error.

Explanation

In a third conditional sentence, the if-clause may be inverted: 'Had the committee scrutinised' means 'If the committee had scrutinised'. The result clause therefore takes 'would have + past participle'. Since 'irregularities' receive the action, the passive form is required: 'would have been detected'. Options using 'would be' or 'will have been' disturb the past unreal time frame, and the active 'would have detected' leaves the object without a proper agent.

Explanation

The assertion uses an inverted third conditional: 'Had the minutes been circulated earlier' means 'If the minutes had been circulated earlier'. This structure refers to an unreal past condition and its possible past result. The result clause correctly uses 'could have raised', not 'could raise' or 'could have been raised' for the members' action. The reason states the exact rule: in formal English, the auxiliary 'had' may be moved before the subject to omit 'if'. Therefore both statements are true, and R explains A.

Explanation

The distinction is between countable and uncountable nouns. Use 'fewer' with plural count nouns such as 'errors', 'applications' and 'recommendations'. Use 'less' with mass or uncountable nouns such as 'time', 'money' and 'information'. Therefore Statement 1 should read: 'The revised draft contains fewer errors than the earlier version.' Statement 2 is already correct because 'time' is uncountable in this context. Hence only Statement 1 requires correction.