ACT English : Word Usage Errors
Study concepts, example questions & explanations for ACT English
All ACT English Resources
Example Questions
Example Question #2101 : Sat Writing
Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English. One of the answer choices reproduces the underlined portion as it is written in the sentence.
If you enter the contest, you could win a sneak peak at the fall fashion line.
you could win a sneak peak to the fall fashion line.
you could win a sneak peek to the fall fashion line.
you could win a sneak peek at the fall fashion line.
you could win a sneak peak at the fall fashion line.
you could win a sneak peak in the fall fashion line.
you could win a sneak peek at the fall fashion line.
In conventional usage, people take a peek “at” something, not “to” or “in” it. The word “peak” refers to a mountaintop; “peek” is the synonym for a glance or look.
Example Question #2102 : Sat Writing
Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English. One of the answer choices reproduces the underlined portion as it is written in the sentence.
The magician performed a cunning illusion for the captivated audience.
The magician performed a cunning illusion to the captivated audience.
The magician performed a cunning illusion for the captivated audience.
The magician performed a cunning allusion for the captivated audience.
The magician performed a cunning illusion at the captivated audience.
The magician performed a cunning allusion to the captivated audience.
The magician performed a cunning illusion for the captivated audience.
An “illusion” is a trick; an “allusion” is a reference (often literary). Tricks and illusions are performed “for” audiences, not “to” or “at” them.
Example Question #661 : Word Usage Errors
Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English.
The politicians couldn't hardly believe their luck.
could hardly believe their luck.
would not hardly believe their luck.
couldn't hardly believe his or her luck.
couldn't hardly believe their luck.
couldn't nearly believe their luck.
could hardly believe their luck.
We are looking for the answer choice without negation. "Could hardly believe their luck" is the only answer that does not contain a negative.
Example Question #52 : Other Usage Errors
Many people believe that the current admissions process for colleges is detrimental for high school students. They claim that current admissions standards place a lot of emphasis on things that do not actually measure a child's success in college, such as standardized test scores. They also believe, that there is an augmented attitude among youth of insincerity, as they do community service just or pretend to be interested in activities solely for admissions.
On the other hand, some believe that there is nothing wrong with the admissions process: any insincerity is a result of active choices on the part of the student, as well as an increase in competition for colleges resulting from economic and social trends. Also, they believe that colleges are in the right for looking for active, rounded students involving in their school and community, and they perceive that there is nothing wrong in encouraging students to have more involvement.
Which of the following is the best alternative for the bolded word, "for"?
with
at
of
to
NO CHANGE
to
This question requires familiarity with the idiom, "detrimental to." The word detrimental is usually used in the phrase "detrimental to," while the rest of the answers do not fall in line with conventional English.
Example Question #1791 : Act English
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
The names of many Latin American dictators have become synonymous to "tyrant," as many of these leaders killed civilians deemed "subversives" without mercy.
The names of many Latin American dictators have become synonymous of "tyrant," as many of these leaders killed civilians deemed "subversives" without mercy.
The names of many Latin American dictators have become synonymous with "tyrant," as many of these leaders killed civilians deemed "subversives" without mercy.
The names of many Latin American dictators have become a synonym with the word "tyrant," as many of these leaders killed civilians deemed "subversives" without mercy.
NO CHANGE
The names of many Latin American dictators have become a synonym to the word "tyrant," as many of these leaders killed civilians deemed "subversives" without mercy.
The names of many Latin American dictators have become synonymous with "tyrant," as many of these leaders killed civilians deemed "subversives" without mercy.
The problem here is idiomatic. In standard English, the word "synonymous" is paired with the word "with." Something is synonymous with something else, an expression indicating that two nouns are remarkably similar, sharing key qualities.
Example Question #51 : Conventional And Idiomatic Usage Errors
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
If I had practiced more, I could of won the concerto competition.
I could win
I could have won
I would of won
I could win
NO CHANGE
I could have won
While people might say "could of" in everyday language, it is not grammatically correct. Could/would/should always go with "have."
Example Question #662 : Word Usage Errors
Select the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the sentence is correct as is, select "NO CHANGE."
Now that I live several thousand miles from home, I wish I would of spent more time with my family when I lived there.
I had spent
I could of spent
I have spent
I was spending
NO CHANGE
I had spent
While many people say "could of" and "would of" it is not grammatically correct (should be "could have" or "would have"). In this case, "had spent" is the proper tense for the verb phrase.
Example Question #663 : Word Usage Errors
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
The concerto was performed by a famous pianist.
The concerto were performed by a famous pianist.
There was a concerto that was performed by a famous pianist.
A famous pianist performed the concerto.
NO CHANGE
The famous pianist was a performer of the concerto.
A famous pianist performed the concerto.
Use active voice ("the pianist performed the concerto") rather than passive ("was performed by"). Active voice is more direct, and produces clearer more concise sentences.
Example Question #664 : Word Usage Errors
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
We could of been the state champions this year if our star player hadn't been suspended for unsportsmanlike conduct.
We could have been the state champions
NO CHANGE
We were going to be the state champions
We should of been the state champions
We would of been the state champions
We could have been the state champions
Despite the fact that "could have" and "could of" sound similar (and are often used interchangeably) when spoken, it is technically grammatically incorrect to use "of" instead of "have" after could/would/should.
Example Question #665 : Word Usage Errors
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
I should of taken out the trash and done the dishes this morning, but I was busy studying for the test.
NO CHANGE
I could of taken out the trash
I should have taken out the trash
I would of taken out the trash
I shouldve taken out the trash
I should have taken out the trash
Even though "should of" sounds ok and is often used in everyday speech, it is technically incorrect usage and should be "should have." "Shouldve" is an incorrect contraction of "should have" because it lacks the apostrophe between the "d" and the "v." Similarly, could of and would of are incorrect and should be could have or would have.
All ACT English Resources
