In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what “was/where/are/have been among the casualties. This case is particularly tricky, as it involves subject-verb inversion - where the subject comes after the verb. The subject of the sentence that is referred to as “among the casualties” is “a cluster.” We describe the cluster as “a cluster of farmhouses” to provide additional context, but the subject “a cluster” itself is singular, despite being accompanied by a plural noun in its modifying context. With this in mind, the only answer option that agrees with the singular subject “a cluster” is “was.” “Were,” “are,” and “have been” are all plural verbs that would require a plural subject.

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on each of our verbs: “have/has” at the start of our answer choices and “worry/worries” at the end. Using both logic and sentence structure, we can identify that what “have recently arrived on retailers’ shelves” are the products. So, the plural verb “have” is appropriate here, and we can eliminate all options that use the singular “has.”

From here, we’ll want to look to the subject taking on the verb “worry/worries.” If we read past or eliminate the modifying phrase “of the new products that ACME Corporation has developed over the past year and that [have] recently arrived on retailers’ shelves,” the core of the sentence reads “the quality worry.” Since quality is singular, the verb we need is “worries,” and we can eliminate any answer option that uses the plural “worry.” This leaves us with our correct answer: “have recently arrived on retailers’ shelves worries.”

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on the verb “have/has/have had/had.” If we break down the construction of the sentence, “of the members of the board” is a modifying phrase referring back to the singular noun, “each.” Since “each” is singular, we need singular agreement with our verb. Only “has” provides us with singular agreement, as all other options either use the plural “have” or seem to imply that each member had experience, but does not anymore, an illogical construction.

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on the verb “pose/poses/has posed/has the potential to pose.” In this case, “of a high-sugar diet” is a modifying phrase. The core of the sentence reads “effects poses.” since “effects” are plural, we need the plural verb “pose.” Each of our incorrect answers incorrectly utilizes a singular verb in some form, which does not agree with the plural term “effects.”

In this example, we are being tested on subject-verb agreement. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what takes on the verb “are increasing,” or its alternative options. Here, “of applicants” and “to top colleges and universities” are both modifying phrases. The subject of the sentence taking on the verb is “the number.” Since “the number” is singular, we need singular agreement, and only the option “is increasing” provides us with this singular agreement. We can also use logic for much of this question. Is the sentence trying to say that the universities are physically getting bigger? That the applicants are physically growing? Since both of these constructions are illogical, logic can point us to the correct and logical subject “the number.”

In this example, we are being tested on noun-pronoun agreement and parallelism. In order to effectively eliminate wrong answers and arrive at the correct answer, we’ll need to determine the subject by addressing who or what we’re referring to with the pronoun “its/their.” In this case, we have a powerful hint in the non-underlined portion - we already refer to Australia using the pronoun “its.” So, we can see that the collective noun, Australia, is singular. We also need to maintain parallel structure between what follows “not only” and what follows “but also.” Our correct answer, “but also for its” correctly refers to Australia using the singular possessive pronoun “its,” and introduces the phrase that follows the “but also” with the preposition “for” followed by the possessive pronoun and the object of possession - the same structure that follows the “not only” in the sentence.

In this example, using the term “depicting,” whether we include the comma in “paintings in the museum, depicting,” or eliminate it as in the original construction, introduces a participial modifier. This modifier correctly refers back to the series of paintings in the museum, but leaves the sentence without a conjugated verb. The construction “paintings in the museum, which depicted​” makes a similar mistake, as the relative clause “which depicted” also leaves the sentence without a verb in verb form. The correct answer, “paintings in the museum depicted​,” corrects this error, as the past tense verb “depicted” creates a complete sentence and agrees with the subject, “a series of paintings.”

In this example, the existing phrasing, “her having,” appears to be an attempt to construct a participial modifier referring back to “his mother,” but the inclusion of the pronouns “her” renders the choice redundant and grammatically incorrect. The choice “she had” creates an independent clause within the commas, which cannot occur grammatically inserted into the middle of a sentence. The choice “which” renders the clause within the commas a relative clause, which might seem correct, but “which” seems to convey the incorrect sense that “his mother” is an inanimate object. The choice “who had,” on the other hand, similarly introduces a relative clause which correctly signifies that “his mother” is a person, and it is accordingly the best choice.