Drill 27 ยท Reading & Writing ยท Standard English Conventions
SAT Reading & Writing: Standard English Conventions (Drill 27) is a Reading & Writing practice drill covering Standard English Conventions. It contains 5 original questions created by Brian Stewart, a Barron's test prep author with over 20 years of tutoring experience.
Five hard SAT Standard English Conventions items covering comma usage with a compound predicate, restrictive "who" picking out a person from a group, finite versus nonfinite verb forms after "since," subject-verb agreement with "each of," and unambiguous pronoun reference between two named figures.
Question 1. Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?
Explanation: The sentence has one subject (Lucy) doing two things: she "showed" adaptations to bipedalism, and she "retained" climbing-related features. That is a compound predicate, not two independent clauses, and a compound predicate takes no comma before "and." (D) leaves the comma out, which is right. (A) inserts a comma before "and," a punctuation move reserved for joining two full clauses with their own subjects. (B) and (C) both try a semicolon, but a semicolon needs an independent clause on each side, and "retained climbing-related features in the upper limbs" is only a verb phrase with no subject of its own. (B) compounds the error by keeping "and" on top of the semicolon.
Question 2. Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?
Explanation: "The Greek architect" alone is far too general (many Greek architects worked in antiquity), so the relative clause that names the Pharos is essential to identify which one. Essential relative clauses take no commas, so (B) is the convention-conforming form. (A) sets the clause off with paired commas, treating it as nonessential extra information, but stripping the clause out leaves the reader with no idea which architect the sentence means. (C) keeps the commas and switches to "designing," a participial phrase that floats as extra information. (D) uses "which," which applies to things, not to people.
Question 3. Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?
Explanation: The main clause needs a finite verb after the long opening modifier, and "since" pairs with the present perfect to describe a stretch of time running from a past start to the present. (A) "have reshaped" gives both: a finite verb in the right tense, agreeing with the plural compound subject "the ship burial and its contents." (B) "reshaping" is a participle, not a finite verb, so the main clause would be left without one. (C) "to reshape" is an infinitive, with the same problem. (D) "reshaped" is finite but pairs the simple past with "since," a combination English does not allow.
Question 4. Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?
Explanation: "Each of" is singular even when the noun phrase that follows is plural. The subject is "each," not "letters," so the verb has to be singular. (C) "represents" agrees. (A) "represent" is the plural form, drawn into agreement with the nearer plural "letters," the standard "each of" trap. (B) "were representing" is plural past progressive, which both fails the agreement and shifts the tense out of present. (D) "have represented" is plural present perfect, again agreeing with the wrong noun.
Question 5. Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?
Explanation: Two named scientists sit in the sentence, and a pronoun would leave the reader unsure which one made the vaccines. The fix is to name the specific scientist. (D) "Pasteur" disambiguates and matches what the sentence already says: he is the one whose work was vaccines. (A) "he" leaves the antecedent open between Pasteur and Koch. (B) "the bacteriologist" could plausibly describe either man and so fails to single one out. (C) "Koch" contradicts the prior clause, which has just said Koch's techniques were isolation and culturing; the sentence even opens by stressing that each scientist pursued work the other did not.