The sentence is written in such a way that "the underbrush" was "running down the hill," and this confusion needs to be clarified. To do this, the sentence needs to be rearranged so that the introductory participial phrase, "Running down the hill," is as close as possible to the noun that it describes, "the boy." Two answer choices rearrange the sentence in this way: "Running down the hill, the boy fell into the thorny underbrush" and "Running down the hill, the boy fell into the underbrush that was thorny." The first of these options is the best because saying "the underbrush that was thorny" instead of "the thorny underbrush" is redundant.

The modifying phrase beginning the sentence must also modify the subject of the main clause. Ancient Greece cannot be skeptical. The only logical subject is philosophers.

The sentence as written contains a dangling modifier, as it is constructed in a manner that makes it seem as if "the path" is "unaware of" "any problems ahead." To correct this, the sentence's word order needs to be reversed so that the introductory phrase is immediately followed by the noun it describes—"the convoy," not "the path." "Unaware of any problems ahead, the convoy followed the path for miles" is the only answer choice that corrects this error. "Unaware of any problems ahead, the convoy following the path for miles" is incorrect because "following" is acting as a participle (that is, like an adjective describing "convoy"), and so the sentence does not contain a predicate and is thus a fragment.

In the sentence, the word "walking" is a dangling modifier, as it is confusing which noun is modified by the action of "walking into the room." The sentence is written in a way that makes it the conference table, and the word order needs to be moved around to clear this up; therefore, the correct answer choice is "the interviewee's vision was dominated by the conference table."

Since the fragment “stirring in a consistent manner” refers to Sophia, her name must appear immediately after the comma; otherwise, it’s considered a misplaced modifier because it appears as if "the soup" is "stirring in a consistent manner." The other options—“to be serving” and “being served”—contain needlessly complex verb tenses.

The first phrase must mention Dr. Olson’s name because, without it, we have a dangling modifier and cannot tell who the director is. Of the two answer choices that do mention Dr. Olson in the first phrase, one uses the verb "was" and the other uses the verb "was being." Because the action of the phrase takes place in the past, as we can tell by the prepositional phrase "for so many years," the answer choice that uses the simple past tense "was" is the correct answer.

Here, “seething with anger” needs to describe who comes right after the comma. Thus, “Seething with anger, I slammed the door behind me” is the only answer choice that makes sense.

It is illogical to state that a "concern" is "worried." The only logical subject of this participle is "Masha."

This sentence contains a faulty comparison. All of the answer choices except "Like Shakespeare's other historical plays, King John dramatizes themes of corruption, betrayal, and power" make it sound as though either Shakespeare or the themes are like the other historical plays.

The sentence is written with a dangling modifier, making it appear like "the cold" was "walking out of the house." The sentence needs to be rearranged to make it clear that "the little boy" was the one doing the walking. The only answer choice that fully takes care of this confusion is "The cold immediately affected the little boy walking out of the house."