The Scholarship Essay and the Dangling Modifier Chain
A student drafts the opening of a scholarship essay. A peer tutor marks four spots.
(1) Having volunteered at the shelter for two years, the application essay felt personal to Maya. (2) She wrote about the residents she had met, and about how their stories changed her plans for college. (3) Each week she logged her hours in a notebook, and later she would transfer them into the official record. (4) The committee, reviewing hundreds of applications, wanted evidence of sustained commitment.
The tutor's notes say: sentence 1 has a structural problem; sentence 2 is fine but could be tighter; sentence 3 has a tense-consistency issue; sentence 4 is correct as written. The student has a 300-word limit and is currently at 280 words.
1. Diagnose the problem in sentence 1, name it, and rewrite the sentence to fix it while keeping both pieces of information (the two years of volunteering and the essay feeling personal).
Read the worked answer
Sentence 1 contains a dangling modifier. The opening phrase Having volunteered at the shelter for two years is meant to describe Maya, but the subject of the main clause is the application essay. As written, the sentence says the essay did the volunteering.
The fix is to make the logical subject of the opening phrase the grammatical subject of the main clause:
Having volunteered at the shelter for two years, Maya felt that her application essay was personal.
or, keeping the essay as the topic:
Because Maya had volunteered at the shelter for two years, her application essay felt personal to her.
The second version keeps essay as the subject and turns the modifier into a full clause, which is often the cleanest repair when the writer wants to foreground the essay.
2. Explain the tense-consistency issue in sentence 3 and give a corrected version.
Read the worked answer
Sentence 3 reads: Each week she logged her hours in a notebook, and later she would transfer them into the official record.
The problem is the shift from simple past (logged) to the conditional/past-future would transfer. In a narrative of completed past events, would transfer reads as a habitual or hypothetical action rather than a completed one, so the two clauses sit in different time frames.
Corrected:
Each week she logged her hours in a notebook, and later she transferred them into the official record.
Keeping both verbs in simple past makes the sequence clear. (If the writer genuinely means a repeated future-in-the-past habit, would transfer could be defended - but the sentence's later signals a single completed step, so simple past is the better fit.)
3. The tutor says sentence 2 "could be tighter" but the essay is under the word limit. Should the student revise sentence 2 anyway? Justify your answer using the setup.
Read the worked answer
Yes - but for a reason other than length. The essay is at 280 of 300 words, so trimming is not required by the limit. The justification for tightening is clarity, not space.
The phrase about the residents she had met, and about how their stories changed her plans uses two about phrases in parallel, which is grammatical but slightly heavy. A tighter version keeps the parallel structure while cutting redundancy:
She wrote about the residents she had met and how their stories changed her college plans.
Dropping the second about and for college → college tightens the sentence without losing meaning. The key judgement: "could be tighter" is not automatically a reason to edit. Here the edit improves flow and preserves meaning, so it is worth doing even with words to spare - but the student should not cut content merely to use fewer words when the limit is not binding.