Five-Sentence Error Correction: Two False Positives and Three Missed Errors
Mina is doing a five-sentence error-correction item. The key lists exactly three sentences containing an error under the prescriptive grammar the exam follows. The sentences are:
- Neither the supervisor nor the technicians were aware of the schedule change.
- Not only the budget was cut, but the training programme was shortened as well.
- The committee insisted that the report is submitted before Friday noon.
- Having reviewed the proposal twice, several errors still remained in the final draft.
- The new rule affects fewer than 200 employees and costs less money than the old one.
Mina's answer sheet: she changed 'were' to 'was' in (1), changed 'fewer' to 'less' in (5), left (2), (3) and (4) completely unmarked, and wrote at the bottom 'only two errors - done'. She has three minutes left and is about to hand in.
1. Identify the three sentences that actually contain an error and give the corrected form of each, with the rule that generates the correction.
Read the worked answer
The errors are in (2), (3) and (4).
(2) Not only was the budget cut, but the training programme was shortened as well. When a restrictive or negative adverbial - not only, rarely, never, hardly, seldom, little - occupies first position, the subject and auxiliary invert: auxiliary first, subject second. Without inversion, 'Not only the budget was cut' reads 'not only the budget' as a fronted object, and the clause cannot be completed by what follows. Note that the inversion applies only to the first clause; the but ... as well clause keeps normal order.
(3) The committee insisted that the report be submitted before Friday noon. Verbs of demand, request and recommendation (insist, demand, recommend, request, propose) take a mandative subjunctive in the that-clause: base form for every person, no -s, no is/was. British usage also permits should be submitted; is submitted is not acceptable in either variety here.
(4) Having reviewed the proposal twice, the editors still found several errors in the final draft. A participial phrase at the start of a sentence takes its understood subject from the main clause. Errors cannot review a proposal, so the modifier dangles.
Sentence (1) and sentence (5) are correct as written.
2. Show why Mina's two edits - 'were' to 'was' in (1) and 'fewer' to 'less' in (5) - both introduce errors into correct sentences.
Read the worked answer
Sentence (1). With the correlative neither ... nor, the rule this exam applies is proximity agreement: the verb agrees with whichever subject stands nearer to it. The nearer subject is technicians, which is plural, so were is correct. Her edit applies the rule for neither standing alone ('Neither of them was...'), which is right only when both elements are singular. If the sentence were reordered as Neither the technicians nor the supervisor..., then was would be correct. The teaching point: with neither ... nor and either ... or, locate the second subject before touching the verb.
Sentence (5). The sentence already uses the pair correctly, and her edit destroys the contrast the item is testing: fewer with a plural count noun (employees - you can count them one by one), less with a singular mass noun (money). 'Less than 200 employees' is the single most common usage error in this item type, which is exactly why she flagged it - familiarity with the trap replaced analysis of the noun.
Both edits are false positives of the same kind: she recognised a famous test point and applied a rule without checking which environment she was in.
3. Apply the same rules to two new sentences she has not seen: 'Hardly had the meeting begun when the fire alarm rang.' and 'The board recommends that the policy is reviewed annually.'
Read the worked answer
First sentence: correct as it stands. Hardly is a negative adverbial in first position, so inversion is obligatory and has been applied (had the meeting begun, not the meeting had begun). Note also the fixed correlative: hardly ... when, never hardly ... than. A candidate who 'fixes' this sentence is applying the inversion rule in the wrong direction - inversion here is required, not an error.
Second sentence: wrong. Recommend that belongs to the mandative family (insist, demand, request, propose, recommend, suggest), so the that-clause takes the base form: the policy be reviewed annually. Should be reviewed is an accepted British alternative; is reviewed is not acceptable in either variety when the meaning is a demand rather than a report of fact.
The linking principle behind both: certain trigger words force a fixed structural consequence. A fronted negative adverbial forces auxiliary-subject order; a demand verb or adjective (essential, vital, necessary that...) forces the base form in the following clause. The efficient exam strategy is to scan the sentence for the trigger word first, then check whether the structure that should follow it is actually there.