Q&A - PSLE English

[ridcully]

Kloggy:

1. Everyone was given a free goodie bag at the opening ceremony except Jason.

All _______________________________________

Correct answer is :All but Jason were given free goodie bags at the opening ceremony.

Is the following acceptable ?
All but Jason were given a free goodie bag at the opening ceremony.

This answer is preferable to the 'correct' answer. It captures the notion that each student, with the exception of Jason, was given one goodie bag.

The 'correct' answer is ambiguous in that it implies that each student, with the exception of Jason, was given more than one goodie bag.

Kloggy:

2. I did not realise how difficult the course was. That was why I signed up.
Had ________________

Ans given : Had I realised how difficult the course was, I would not have signed up for it.

Qn : is the 'for it' at the end needed ? Can the answer just be :
Had I realised how difficult the course was, I would not have signed up.

No. Combined sentences should retain antecedents and referents unless these are repeated.

Kloggy:

3. The children were amazed. The magician pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat.
_____________________ much to __________________

My qn here is on punctuation. In the following answer, if the comma was omitted, is it still grammatically correct :

The magician pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat, much to the children's amazement.

Still grammatically correct. The use of the comma here is one of style, not grammar.

Rgds
R

[ridcully]

jamestancx997:

1. It is acceptable but not the best answer, because of ambiguity. It could also be taken to mean all of them were given just one goodie bag, without the word \"each\" at the end of the phrase. Since you don't need to stretch it so far from the original, just pluralize \"goodie bags\".

Wrong. All of them, with the exception of Jason, were indeed given just one goodie bag each: look at the source sentences.

jamestancx997:

2. Acceptable. \"Sign up\" is terminology in common parlance. No reason why \"for it\" should be absolutely compulsory.

True that 'sign up' is informal, but wrong about referents. See my answer to the original poster.

jamestancx997:

3. For clarity of clausal separation a comma is strongly recommended.

Possibly true, but are you sure that 'much to the children's amazement' is a clause?

Hope you feel more enlightened.

Rgds
R

[Kloggy]

definitely more enlightened, thank you!

[anneshirleygilbert]

Thank you, meimeitan and Ridcully.

[jamestancx997]

ridcully:

jamestancx997:

1. It is acceptable but not the best answer, because of ambiguity. It could also be taken to mean all of them were given just one goodie bag, without the word \"each\" at the end of the phrase. Since you don't need to stretch it so far from the original, just pluralize \"goodie bags\".

Wrong. All of them, with the exception of Jason, were indeed given just one goodie bag each: look at the source sentences.

jamestancx997:

2. Acceptable. \"Sign up\" is terminology in common parlance. No reason why \"for it\" should be absolutely compulsory.

True that 'sign up' is informal, but wrong about referents. See my answer to the original poster.

jamestancx997:

3. For clarity of clausal separation a comma is strongly recommended.

Possibly true, but are you sure that 'much to the children's amazement' is a clause?

Hope you feel more enlightened.

Rgds
R

1. You are mistaken about the meaning of my sentences. I mean the same thing as you: that everyone was given 1 goodie bag, so for clarity it should read \"one goodie bag each\", failing which it is perfectly acceptable to say they were collectively given goodie bags.

2. I didn't say anything about referents or antecedents. My response was concerned with practical usage.

3. My mistake here. I meant phrasal, not clausal.

See, instead of making strange comments like \"I leave it to everyone decide whose answer was more helpful,\" I own up to mistakes when I make them. Nobody is perfect, and it should be a cooperative effort on all our parts to arrive at the best answers.

Since I sense that I am conspicuously omitted from acknowledgement lists on a pretty consistent basis so far, I think I shall just leave this roost to forum old-timers.

[ridcully]

jamestancx997:

1. You are mistaken about the meaning of my sentences. I mean the same thing as you...

In that case, you need to tidy up your written expression.

jamestancx997:

2. I didn't say anything about referents or antecedents. My response was concerned with practical usage.

Depending on how flexible you wish the concept of 'practical usage' to be, the PSLE is not a test of practical usage.

jamestancx997:

It should be a cooperative effort on all our parts to arrive at the best answers.

Glad to hear it. You previously admitted to self-promotion, so I see hope for you.

jamestancx997:

Since I sense that I am conspicuously omitted from acknowledgement lists on a pretty consistent basis so far, I think I shall just leave this roost to forum old-timers.

You are worried about popularity? If you wish to help others, do not be concerned with lack of acknowledgement.

I acknowledge your effort.

Rgds
R

[jamestancx997]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45g

[Kloggy]

I have some S&T questions, would appreciate some help.


1) I took my medicine. I went to bed.
After

Which answer is correct ?
(a) After I took my medicine, I went to bed.
(b) After I have taken my medicine, I went to bed.
After I had taken my medicine, I went to bed.

The teacher says , but why is (b) or (a) wrong ?


2) Grandmother still stays at Marine Parade. Grandmother stayed there from 1983.

_ since ___________________________

Are both the below acceptable :
(a) Grandmother has been staying at Marine Parade since 1983.
(b) Grandmother has stayed at Marine Parade since 1983.

3) Tom won the contract. He was confident and sincere.

Owing to _______________________________________

Are both the below acceptable :
(a) Owing to Tom’s confidence and sincerity, the contract was won.
(b) Owing to his confidence and sincerity, Tom won the contract.

4) Sherry does not return until she has bought all she needs for the party.
Not until __________________________________________

Is this correct?
Not until Sherry has bought all she needs for the party, she will not return.

5) Mr Wong was short. He could reach the shelf.
Despite ___________________________

Which is correct ?
(a) Despite Mr Wong’s shortness, he could reach the shelf.
(b) Despite Mr Wong’s short height, he could reach the shelf.


Many thanks!

[Mdm Koh]

For question (1), answer is (c) with \"had taken\" (past perfect tense).


We use past perfect tense because it expresses the idea that although both actions took place in the past, one action took place before the other.

For question (2), the answer is the option with \"has been staying\". I don't think \"has stayed\" is acceptable because \"stay\" is a normal verb. For actions from a certain time in the past until now, you only use the present perfect form if the verb is a non-continuous verb.

For more info, see here: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/types.html

For question (3), my answer is \"Owing to his confidence and sincerity, Tom won the contract.\"

The first option, \"Owing to Tom's confidence and sincerity, the contract was won\" is slightly vague. It has changed the meaning of the two given sentences in a subtle way, because it doesn't necessarily show that the contract was won by Tom.

Question (4), \"Not until Sherry has bought all she needs for the party will she return.\"

Finally, question (5), both options seem to be wrong. :shock: My answer is, \"Despite being short, Mr Wong could reach the shelf.\"

We don't really use \"shortness\" to talk about height. It's used for phrases like \"shortness of breath\"....

We also don't say \"short height\". Or \"tall height\", for that matter...

Hope this helps.

[Kloggy]

Thank you Mdm Koh for your explanation, much appreciated.