Ninety Words, Two Hours, One Print Run
The editorial team of a college newsletter has 90 words of space left on page 2 and two hours before the 500-copy print run goes to press. The report to be trimmed describes a two-day blood donation camp run by the NSS unit: 260 students registered, 212 were screened, 168 units were collected, and the college's target was 150 units. The draft contains this sentence: 'Having collected 168 units against a target of 150, the doctors declared the camp a success.' It also contains: 'The NSS volunteers told the visitors that they had to eat before donating, which many of them found confusing.' A second-year editor proposes this summary: 'The NSS blood donation camp beat its 150-unit target, collecting 168 units from 260 registered students.' A third-year editor prefers: 'Doctors declared the two-day NSS camp a success after 212 students were screened and 168 units were collected, exceeding the 150-unit goal.' The faculty adviser will not extend the deadline and wants one summary plus corrected copy.
1. The faculty adviser wants one summary that fits the 90-word space and is factually safe. Compare the two proposals and recommend one, offering a corrected version if neither is acceptable.
Read the worked answer
Both proposals fit inside 90 words (20 and 27 words respectively), so space does not settle the matter - accuracy does.
The second-year version is compact but misleading: 'collecting 168 units from 260 registered students' invites the reading that 260 students donated or nearly all did. The draft shows 212 were screened and 168 of those donated, roughly 79% of the screened group. The third-year version keeps the screening figure, names the target of 150 and shows the target was exceeded, which is the actual news. Its weakness is attribution: 'Doctors declared ... a success' reports an opinion, not a fact.
A safe 24-word replacement: 'The two-day NSS blood donation camp collected 168 units against a target of 150; 212 of 260 registered students were screened.' This keeps the comparison with the target and does not inflate the donor pool.
2. Identify the grammatical fault in 'Having collected 168 units against a target of 150, the doctors declared the camp a success' and rewrite it for print.
Read the worked answer
The opening phrase is a participial (dangling) modifier. Such a phrase is read as describing the subject of the main clause, which here is 'the doctors'. But the doctors did not collect the units - the NSS unit and its donors did. The sentence therefore says something the writer does not mean.
Two repairs are available. Keep the doctors as subject and convert the phrase into a clause: 'The doctors declared the camp a success after the NSS unit collected 168 units against a target of 150.' Or keep the collection as the opening and make the camp the subject: 'Having collected 168 units against a target of 150, the NSS camp was declared a success by the doctors.' The first is preferable because the active verb 'collected' names who did the work, and passive 'was declared' weakens the sentence.
A quick test for the desk: ask who performed the action in the opening phrase, then check that the same noun is the subject of the clause that follows.
3. Rewrite 'The NSS volunteers told the visitors that they had to eat before donating, which many of them found confusing' so that it is unambiguous, and explain why the fault matters more in print than in speech.
Read the worked answer
The sentence has two referential failures. 'They' can point to the volunteers or to the visitors, and 'which' has no single antecedent - the confusion attaches to the instruction, to the eating, or to the telling.
A clean version: 'NSS volunteers told visitors that donors must eat before donating; several visitors said the instruction was unclear.' Naming 'donors' removes the pronoun problem, and the semicolon replaces the vague 'which' with a stated fact.
The fault matters more in print because a speaker can be interrupted and can clarify in the next breath. A printed notice in 500 copies reaches readers with no chance to ask, so an ambiguity is read as an error and cannot be recalled. In an instruction about eligibility to donate, a misread could also send a student to the camp unprepared.