The circular that must go up by 4 p.m.
The regional office must put out a one-page circular on revised OPD timings before 4 p.m., when it goes on the notice board and the intranet. Your senior has drafted it and flagged four sentences for you to settle. His instruction is: "Correct what is wrong; do not rewrite my style."
The flagged sentences are:
(i) Neither the Medical Officer nor the staff nurses has submitted the attendance register.
(ii) The committee comprises of five members, including two representatives of the insured persons.
(iii) Having examined the register, the discrepancy was noticed by the audit clerk.
(iv) One of the dispensaries, which were inspected last week, have not submitted the stock statement.
Separately, the first paragraph says the timings "will be revised from 1 April" while the second says they "have been revised from 1 April". The circular is dated 28 March and is being issued that afternoon.
1. Decide what, if anything, is wrong in sentences (i), (ii) and (iii), and give the corrected form of each with your reason.
Read the worked answer
(i) Wrong verb. In a "neither ... nor ..." construction the verb agrees with the subject nearer to it. Here the nearer subject is staff nurses (plural), so the verb must be plural: "Neither the Medical Officer nor the staff nurses have submitted the attendance register." Changing nurses to the singular would be rewriting his meaning, not correcting an error.
(ii) Redundant preposition. Comprise already means "consist of / be made up of", so it takes a direct object and never takes of. Correct: "The committee comprises five members ...". If he prefers the of form, the verb must change to consists - but that is a stylistic swap, so the minimal fix is to delete of.
(iii) Dangling participle. An introductory -ing phrase attaches to the subject of the main clause. As written, the "examining" is done by the discrepancy, which is absurd. Correct: "Having examined the register, the audit clerk noticed the discrepancy." Only the clause order changes; his words survive.
2. Sentence (iv) contains two possible points of contention. Which one is a genuine error and which is defensible? State your final version.
Read the worked answer
The genuine error is the main verb. The head of the subject is One, not dispensaries; the phrase of the dispensaries and the relative clause after it are both modifiers and cannot change the number of the head. So have must become has: "One of the dispensaries ... has not submitted the stock statement."
The which were inspected clause is defensible and should be left alone. In "one of the plural noun + which ...", the relative pronoun normally refers to the plural noun, so were is correct: several dispensaries were inspected, and one of them has defaulted. Changing it to was would assert that only one dispensary was inspected - that alters a fact, which a proofreader may not do. If the ambiguity worried the senior, the clean rewrite is to split the sentence, but that is his call, not a correction.
3. The two paragraphs disagree on tense. Which form fits, and why does the other one not?
Read the worked answer
The circular is dated and issued on 28 March, but the change takes effect on 1 April. At the moment of issue the revision is still in the future, so "the timings will be revised from 1 April" is accurate and "have been revised" is not: the present perfect asserts a completed change, which is untrue on 28 March and would expose the office to a complaint from any insured person who turned up on 30 March at the old time.
The cleaner official formula avoids the auxiliary altogether: "The timings stand revised with effect from 1 April." That is dated-neutral - it is equally true on 28 March and on 2 April - and it removes the need for any further edit if the circular is reprinted after the changeover. Whatever form is chosen, both paragraphs must use the same one; a circular that describes one decision two ways invites the reader to assume two different decisions.