Our students in China couldn’t believe their good fortune.
Good one, Effie and Dave!
Our (admittedly mild) April Fools' joke on our students
June 3rd, 2010GMAT Prep: Brutal SC Practice Question
June 2nd, 2010Joanna Bersin, a Content Developer at Knewton, takes special pride in crafting mind-numbingly hard GMAT Sentence Correction questions.
Prepping for the GMAT? Check out this super-challenging Sentence Correction question. If you can get this one right, you’ve got nothing to worry about on test day! For the answer, check out the discussion here.
The policy of applying indirect taxes, like value added tax and excise duties, that were enforced in Lithuania was less strict when compared to the European Union’s members in 2000, which imposed tax rules and tariffs that, for the most part, needed to be tightened in order to harmonize with the EU’s requirements and not to loosen it for the purpose of remaining competitive with trading partners outside of the EU.
(A) The policy of applying indirect taxes, like value added tax and excise duties, that were enforced in Lithuania was less strict when compared to the European Union’s members in 2000, which imposed tax rules and tariffs that, for the most part, needed to be tightened in order to harmonize with the EU’s requirements and not to loosen it
(B) The policy of applying indirect taxes, including value added tax and excise duties, enforced in Lithuania was less strict when compared with the policy applied by the European Union’s members in 2000, imposing tax rules and tariffs that, for the most part, needed to be tightened so that the country would harmonize with the EU’s requirements rather than loosening them
(C) When it was compared with that enforced by members of the European Union in 2000, the policy of applying indirect taxes, like value added tax and excise duties, that were enforced in Lithuania and that were less strict, were imposing tax rules and tariffs that, for the most part, needed to be tightened in order to harmonize with the EU’s requirements rather than loosening them
(D) Compared with that enforced by members of the European Union in 2000, the policy of applying indirect taxes, like value added tax and excise duties, that was enforced in Lithuania was less strict, imposing tax rules and tariffs that, for the most part, needed to be tightened so that the country would harmonize with the EU’s requirements rather than loosened
(E) In 2000, Lithuania, compared with the members of the European Union, had a policy of applying indirect taxes, including value added tax and excise duties, that were enforced less strictly, since it imposed tax rules and tariffs that, for the most part, needed tightening in order that they would harmonize with the EU’s requirements and not to loosen
SAT Prep: Evil SAT Trick of the Week #4
June 1st, 2010
Alex Sarlin is the Lead Verbal Developer at Knewton. He moonlights as Knewton’s designated SAT Prep Archangel.
Welcome to the fourth installment of “Evil SAT Trick of the Week.” As always, we want to remind you that the makers of the SAT are not evil. They do not break laws, for example (we assume). They do not kick dogs or shift their eyes back and forth or wear goatees. Unfortunately, some of the traps that they bake into the SAT are, in fact, evil. Luckily, you have a guide who can show you some of these evil traps and how to avoid them. Unluckily, until you enroll in the Knewton SAT course, my own evil inner child only lets me reveal one trick to you every week. At that rate, it will take ages to see them all… mwah hah hah hah–cough–ok, let’s begin.
Evil Trick # 17: Subject Camouflage
This week’s evil trick concerns the Writing section of the SAT; specifically, the Identifying Sentence Errors question type. This is the question type in which certain words are underlined and labeled A, B, C, D and E (No error), and you must decide which, if any, of the words are grammatically incorrect.
|
For the most part, this is not a very evil question type. If you know a certain set of grammar rules (which we at Knewton call “The Freshman 15″), you will be incredibly well-prepared for anything you see on this section. However, the SAT does use at least one sneaky trick again and again, and keeping an eye out for it will almost certainly earn you points on the test.
The incorrect word in this sentence is “were” (which would be choice B if these choices were labeled). Why? Because the actual subject of this sentence is “family,” which is a singular noun, and “were” is a plural verb. Nouns like “family,” “team,” and “”jury” are called collective nouns, which describe a group made up of members; collective nouns always act as a unit on the SAT and are considered singular. They must agree with singular verbs and be referred to by singular pronouns.
What’s really evil about this question is that the SAT specifically puts the plural noun “tourists” directly next to the plural verb “were” so that it looks correct. When your eye scans the words “tourists were,” it does not register any error. The subject of a sentence will never be inside of a prepositional phrase, like “of American tourists.” When you see prepositions like “of,” “for,” and “to,” train your brain to “shut off” when checking for subject-verb agreement.
This is no accident; the sentence is designed specifically to catch test-takers who are reading quickly or who are not used to locating the subject of the sentence. Of course, it is also designed to test your ability to catch subject-verb agreement.
|
This singular-plural subject camouflage can work the other way as well: In this sentence, the subject is “roads.” “To the ancient Roman city” and “of Parma” are just prepositional phrases that describe these “roads.” That means that we need the plural verb “lead” to match our plural subject “roads”. “Parma” and “city” are both singular, and they are placed in the sentence just to camouflage the subject-verb error.
These sentences are not so evil (or tricky) when you know what you’re looking for, are they? The moral of the story is: keep your eyes on the subject, especially when it is separated from its verb. Evil, stay away!
