GMAT Verbal : Correcting Phrase, Clause, and Sentence Errors
Study concepts, example questions & explanations for GMAT Verbal
All GMAT Verbal Resources
Example Questions
Example Question #1 : Correcting Interrupting Phrase 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.
For years he sought to get a pardon for his late father, until new evidence came out that convinced him his father was in fact guilty.
that convinced him his father was in fact guilty.
that convinced him his father was, in fact, guilty.
that convinced him his father was, in fact guilty.
that convinced him his father was in fact, guilty.
that convinced him, his father was in fact guilty.
that convinced him his father was, in fact, guilty.
In the underlined portion of the sentence, "in fact" is an interrupting phrase, a phrase that adds extra meaning to the sentence, but is not a part of the sentence's main structure. Any interrupting phrase must be set apart from the rest of the sentence by commas. The only answer choice that makes this correction is "that convinced him his father was, in fact, guilty."
Example Question #2 : Correcting Interrupting Phrase 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.
Working together, which was a process fraught with problems the two research teams were able to meet the incredibly tough deadline.
Working together, which was a process fraught with problems, the two
Working together, which was a process fraught with problems the two
Working together, which was a process, fraught with problems the two
Working together which was a process fraught with problems the two
Working together, which was a process, fraught with problems, the two
Working together, which was a process fraught with problems, the two
The phrase "which was a process fraught with problems" is an interrupting phrase, one that adds meaning to the sentence, but is not a part of the main structure of the sentence. All interrupting phrases must be set apart from the rest of the sentence by commas. "Working together, which was a process fraught with problems, the two" is the only answer choice which appropriately sets off the interrupting phrase.
Example Question #3 : Correcting Interrupting Phrase 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 volcano a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass threatened the lives of most of the island's residents.
The volcano a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass, threatened
The volcano, a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass, threatened
The volcano a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass threatened
The volcano, a massive geothermal spot, in the middle of the landmass, threatened
The volcano, a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass threatened
The volcano, a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass, threatened
The phrase "a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass" functions in this sentence as an interrupting phrase, one which conditions the meaning of the sentence, but sits outside the core structure of the sentence. Any interrupting phrase must be set apart from the rest of the sentence by commas. "The volcano, a massive geothermal spot in the middle of the landmass, threatened" is the only answer choice which correctly deploys commas around the phrase.
Example Question #2 : Correcting Interrupting Phrase 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.
Another solution to the author's problem regards the least possible world: that is, one that is metaphysically simplest; as something that actually does exist, rather than a mental construct.
least possible world—that is, one that is metaphysically simplest—as something
least possible world-that is, one that is metaphysically simplest-as something
least possible world, that is, one that is metaphysically simplest, as something
least possible world that is, one that is metaphysically simplest as something
least possible world: that is, one that is metaphysically simplest; as something
least possible world—that is, one that is metaphysically simplest—as something
The use of dashes to set off the parenthetical phrase explaining what the least possible world is (rather than simply renaming it, as an appositive phrase set off by commas would do) is the best solution for this sentence.
Example Question #4 : Correcting Interrupting Phrase 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.
In the Oxford Ordinatio (or what's left of it, at any rate), Scotus seems to suggest a moral psychology that anticipates Kant's by a good five hundred years.
In the Oxford Ordinatio (or what's left of it [at any rate]), Scotus
In the Oxford Ordinatio, (or what's left of it, at any rate), Scotus
In the Oxford Ordinatio (or what's left of it, at any rate), Scotus
In the Oxford Ordinatio (or what's left of it, at any rate) Scotus
In the Oxford Ordinatio or what's left of it, at any rate, Scotus
In the Oxford Ordinatio (or what's left of it, at any rate), Scotus
The parenthetical interrupting phrase "or what's left of it, at any rate" is associated with the phrase "In the Oxford Ordinatio," and should come before the comma that separates that phrase from the rest of the sentence. No other punctuation is needed to set off the parenthetical phrase from the phrase it is associated with, nor should this phrase be needlessly split into further parenthetical phrases.
Example Question #1 : Correcting Interrupting Phrase 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. One of the answer choices reproduces the underlined portion as it is written in the sentence.
For Kant, ever the optimist moral progress within a community is almost inevitable.
For Kant ever the optimist moral progress
For Kant ever the optimist, moral progress
For Kant, ever the optimist moral progress
For Kant (ever the optimist moral) progress
For Kant—ever the optimist—moral progress
For Kant—ever the optimist—moral progress
In formal written English, em-dashes (—) or commas are used to set off interrupting phrases. Commas would also be correct if used to set apart the phrase "ever the optimist," but that option is not provided as an answer choice, so the option that uses em-dashes to set apart the phrase is the correct answer.
Example Question #244 : Correcting Phrase, Clause, And Sentence 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.
William McKinley, who served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, and he was re-elected for his second term as president in 1900.
William McKinley served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, and he was re-elected
William McKinley, who served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, was re-elected
William McKinley, who served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, and he was re-elected
William McKinley: who served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, was re-elected
William McKinley, served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, was re-elected
William McKinley, who served on the side of the Union in the Civil War, was re-elected
The relative clause beginning with "who served..." modifies William McKinley. This modifying phrase should be offset by two commas. The verb "was" is the predicate of the sentence - if you remove the modifying clause, you get "William McKinley was re-elected." This is correct, over "William McKinley and he was re-elected." Interrupting phrases should be able to be removed, and still leave a grammatically correct sentence behind.
Example Question #1 : Correcting Modifier Placement 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.
For the last decade, the city has had more tourists every single year.
the city has had more tourists every single year.
the city has had more tourists each single year.
the city having had more tourists every single year.
the city has had more tourists every single year than the year before.
the city has had more tourists coming every single year.
the city has had more tourists every single year than the year before.
The sentence as written is awkward, making it seem as though some unspecified amount of tourists are arriving "every single year." The exact comparison being made by "more" must be made explicit. The only answer choice that clears up this confusion is "the city has had more tourists every single year than the year before."
Example Question #1 : Correcting Ambiguous Modifier 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.
A majority of the electorate believes that policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people at the national level.
A majority of the electorate believes that policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people at the national level.
A majority of the electorate believe that national policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people.
A majority of the electorate believes that national policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people.
A majority of the electorate believe that policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people at the national level.
A majority of the electorate, at the national level, believes that policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people.
A majority of the electorate believes that national policy directives have little to no impact on the day-to-day lives of the people.
A majority is singular, so the verb "to believe" must agree with that verb form. Additionally, there is an ambiguous modifier at the end of the sentence. "National level" refers to policy, not people; therefore, it must be placed next to "policy," the noun that it modifies.
Example Question #2 : Correcting Ambiguous Modifier 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.
Working overtime to produce their first issue, the newspaper was instantly acclaimed as a successful venture in the publishing field.
Working overtime to produce their first issue
Working overtime in producing their first issue
Having worked overtime to produce their first issue
Working overtime to produce the first issue
With its staff working overtime to produce the first issue
With its staff working overtime to produce the first issue
As constructed, the sentence reads that the "newspaper," an inanimate object, is what is working overtime, rather than the individuals actually putting in the work. The phrase needs to be reworked to show what is actually working. "With its staff working overtime to produce the first issue" is the only answer choice that makes the correct change.
All GMAT Verbal Resources
