abysmanu

I think the answers are C, D, A, E, D What are the OAs?

Originating in English common law, covenants are a way of protecting property interests of a community. In the above sentence, 'originating' is wrong. It should be replaced with 'Having originated in' Can you please specify what question number in OG this is?

This question seems to be wrong. All the answer choices have errors. one of the errors all the choices have is that 'product' is singular, while 'them' and 'they' are plural. Also, using 'stuff' is certainly not correct.

I feel E is correct. A - antecedent of 'they' is not readily apparent B - antecedent of 'it' is not readily apparent c - Use of 'if' is not correct. Also, 'when eaten' should be next to 'fava beans' D - Wrong meaning - Anemia is not triggered by people, as this sentence suggests. Also, 'who ...' is misplaced I agree that usage of people is generally preferred. However, persons is certainly not wrong.

Option B is wrong because the modifier 'which is ... ' is right next to 1992. D makes it clear that the amount was 14 percent more and hence is correct.

Thats right. It doesn't sound correct. This is probably because plural forms of orange and grapefruit are possible, and hence should be used. However, the sports (football and tennis) do not have any plural form.

D is wrong because 'big' and 'long' should not both be in the sentence. Presence of one makes the other redundant.

I play sports such as tennis and football. IMO, the above sentence is correct because of the conjunction 'and', which makes 'sports' correct. The original sentence contains 'or' which means that the items (oranges, grapefruits) should be plural

I don't think any of the choices is correct. 'some' indicates that 'fruits' should be used. Both oranges and grapefruits should be plural.

I am no grammer lord :-), but my 2c -> 1. A - wrong tense (have developed) since the development took place in the past B and D are wrong as the evidence if of development and not of American-Indians C - The pronoun 'them' seems to refer to North American indians. E is correct 2. B - Seems to specify that 'dwellings that must also operate like business' have a distinction that is shared by the houses, but does not specify what that distinction is. Change in meaning makes this incorrect. Also, number does not agree (dwellings v/s business) C - Number does not agree (dwellings v/s business) E - changes meaning. Also 'to be' and 'that' are inappropriate Between A and D, I would choose A because I feel 'distinction of' is better than 'distinction that' 3. A does not say who or what understands sytax D seems to suggest that the syntax is in light of evidence E - 'according to evidence' is at the wrong place. It should be placed between 'yet' and 'they'. At its present location, 'according to the evidence' seems to be modifying syntax B - 'there is yet' seems to be wrong, although I can't explain why. 'their having understood' is not parallel to 'have a remarkable memory' C - Is correct

A - Incorrect modifier - 'along with ... serfdom' seems to modify Chinese. This is wrong B - Correct C - Tense does not agree in the two parts - 'did they' v/s 'have abolished'. Moreover, the idiom 'not only .. but also' not properly used D and E - Awkward and gramatically incorrect

I feel both may and might will be appropriate here. the other differences determine the correct answer. B - uses possessive 'attributed to be Rembrandt's' which is awkward C - Tense does not agree. The paintings are presently attributed to rembrandt, hence using were is wrong. Also, 'be by rembrandt' is awkward - doesn't contain a verb. D - Same problem as with C (wrong tense). Also him does not have an antecedent. E - 'although 720 ...' is not correctly used as a modifier hence, correct answer should be A.

'founded as a Romanized counterweight to Hebraic Jerusalem' is a modifier. Using so will not be appropriate. if you remove this modifier and try to use choice D, the sentence becomes - Caesarea was Herod’s city,and so it was regarded with loathing by the devout. - which changes the meaning of the sentence as it seems to imply that the city was loathed because it was herod's city. Using 'as such' on the other hand makes the meaning much clearer.

If B had : what skills he was lacking in visual composition, he more than compensated for by rather than what skills he was lacking in visual composition, he more than compensated for in If this were the case, B would not be parallel since 'lacking in' is not parallel with 'compensated for by' Moreover, B and D would then be very similar.

E - wrong because it does not contain conpensated for The cameraman is not compesating something (or someone) - he is compensating for his lack of skill A - what skill was lacking is awkward. Also, in choices A and D, 'in his visual composition' not parallel with 'his ability' (lacks in) C - Changes meaning - he lacked something, his visual composition did not B is the only correct choice