In this example, we need the introductory, participial modifier “alarmed by the recent decline of the stock market” to logically modify something that has the potential to be “alarmed.” In the original construction, “alarmed by the recent decline of the stock market” seems to modify “many retirement investments.” This is an illogical construction, as investments don’t have the capacity to be alarmed. With this in mind, we can eliminate answers beginning with “many retirement investments” and consider only those that begin “many retirement investors.” From here, we can eliminate the option “many retirement investors have been switched from stocks,” as the investors are not being switched, they are switching stocks. So, we’re left with “many retirement investors have switched their stocks,” the only logical construction out of our options.

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the participial modifier “published since 1851.” What follows the comma for this introductory modifier should be what the sentence is attempting to describe as “published since 1851.” Since the logical meaning of the sentence should suggest that “the New York Times” was “published since 1851,” not “the founders,” we can eliminate all wrong answers, and we’re left with “the New York Times was founded by,” our correct answer.

In this example, we’re being tested on the modifier type introduced by the underlined portion of the sentence. In the original construction, and in all answer options that begin with “which,” we introduce a relative clause that must logically refer back to the noun or noun phrase directly before. Since “yesterday” did not force the city council to cancel the parade, we can eliminate any option that utilizes the relative modifier “which.” This leaves us with the correct answer, “forcing.” since participial (-ing) modifiers at the end of a sentence can refer back to the subject or subject-containing clause, in this case, “a severe snowstorm.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the introductory participial modifier “performing in front of a crowd for the first time.” To logically complete the sentence, what follows the comma must be something that can be described as “performing in front of a crowd for the first time.” In the original construction, the sentence attempts to modify “the audibility,” making the introductory modifier illogical. In our other incorrect answers, the sentence illogically modifies “Mike’s voice” as “performing in front of a crowd for the first time. This is also an illogical and thus incorrect construction. Our correct answer, “Mike had difficulty making his voice audible,” correctly modifies “Mike” as “performing in front of a crowd for the first time."

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the introductory modifier “with a safe habitat in which to repopulate and thrive.” This modifier must be followed by what the sentence is logically trying to modify. The original construction, “the peregrine falcon has had the ability to recover from endangered status” logically modifies the peregrine falcon as “with a safe habitat in which to repopulate and thrive,” and also maintains subject-verb agreement. All other answer options either illogically modify “the endangered status” or “the ability” as “with a safe habitat in which to repopulate and thrive,” or incorrectly pair the subject “the peregrine falcon” with the plural verb phrase “have had.”

In this example, we’re being testing on the application of different types of modifiers. In the existing structure, the relative clause modifier, “which has led to heated debates” must refer back to the noun or noun phrase that comes before the comma. Since the sentence could not logically be referring to “the sun” with this modifier, any construction with “which” is incorrect. The correct answer replaces the relative clause with the participial modifier “leading to,” which can refer back to the subject or subject-containing clause, the desired structure in this case.

When encountering a list, ensure that each item in the list is presented in the same way, maintaining a parallel structure. In this case, the first two items, “checking” and “skimming,” is given in the present participle. For that reason, “reviewed” doesn’t belong here, as it is in the past simple tense. Similarly, “he reviewed” is not parallel as well as redundant, as “he” already appears at the start of the next clause. Furthermore, “he has reviewed” is in the past perfect tense, which is likewise different than the present participle used in the previous items. The correct answer, “reviewing,” is in the present participle, and thus maintains parallel structure within the list.