In this example, we’re being tested on meaning and the use of an appropriate transition word to convey a meaning that is logical. In order to do so, we’ll want to look at the relationship between the sentence before the transition word at hand and the sentence that follows. In this case, the fact that “video games are commonly associated with addictive and potentially violent tendencies in young children” seems to contrast with the following sentence suggesting that “there is far more evidence to suggest that video games, in moderation, help children to develop cognitive and social skills.” So, we need a contrast term to address this connection. “Additionally” and “furthermore” both provide a continuation term, which would not be appropriate in this context. “Hence” suggests that what follows is a conclusion based on the earlier sentence, which would also be illogical. In this case, the original construction, “however” is the only option that appropriately expresses the contrast between the perceived negative impacts of video games and the evidence provided about the potential positive factors.

In this example, it’s important to note that the term “native” means “originally from.” If we keep this in mind, we can begin to see the redundancy involved in any example that utilizes both the term “originally” and the term “native.” With this noted, the only option that eliminates this redundancy is “natives.” Whenever one of our answer options chose to simply eliminate a portion of the phrase, we want to consider the possibility that redundancy is being tested and ensure that each term adds unique value in the sentence.

In this example, we want to express a meaning that is in agreement, and lacks redundancy. Because “per year,” is already in the non-underlined portion of the sentence, it would be completely redundant to also refer to the amount raised as “annual.” for this reason, we can eliminate the original construction, “is able to raise an annual,” as well as “are able to raise an annual.” The latter construction also makes the error of attempting to agree the singular “organization” to the plural verb “are.” Since our subject is singular, we need the singular “is” and can thus also eliminate “are able to raise,” leaving us with our correct answer, “is able to raise.”

In this example, we want to aim to express a meaning that is concise and logical. In order to do so, we’ll want to address what “that of” or “those of” is meant to refer to in the answer options. Since the comparison is between “their own species and (that of/those of) others, it would seem as though the “those of” is attempting to refer to the species. However, the term “others” already refers to the species, so it would be completely illogical and redundant to draw a comparison between “their own species and the species of other species.” This leaves us with only our correct answer, “others,” which draws a succinct and logical comparison.

In this example, we want to aim to express a meaning that is concise and logical. The original construction, “attempted to try to,” is illogical and redundant, since “attempted” and “try to” mean the same thing. This redundancy allows us to eliminate both the original construction and “tried to attempt to,” since reordering the words does not eliminate the redundancy. Between our remaining options, the answer “attempting to” is incorrect because the participial form leaves the sentence without a conjugated verb. Our correct answer, “attempted to,” both lacks redundancy and creates a complete sentence.

This example attempts to describe differences between two animals. However, since differences are already inherently varied, it would be redundant to describe the differences as “varied differences,” particularly since we already address that there are “several differences” in the non-underlined portion. “Variable differences” is illogical in meaning, and is an improper word to utilize in this context, and “difference” does not agree with the plurality of “several” in the non-underlined portion. This leaves us with our correct answer, “differences.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the redundancy of the phrase “protesting against.” Since protesting already means speaking up against, it would be redundant to utilize both of those terms. “Away from” makes the same mistake, and “for,” is perhaps even more illogical, as it conflicts with the context reinforcing that members of the group favored environmentally-conscious options over coal. In this case, we should delete the underlined portion entirely, as it is unnecessary and in some options outright illogical.

In this example, we’re being tested on the redundancy of the use of both “depreciated” and “in value.” Since depreciated already means “decreased in value,” the “in value” is completely redundant and unnecessary. This issue is not corrected with the phrases “has been depreciating in value” or “have been depreciating in value,” and the latter creates an additional error of agreement between “the stock” and “have.” Our correct answer, “depreciated,” eliminates this redundancy, and concisely expresses a meaning that is logical.