Reading Comprehension – Vocabulary used in speech or writing organizes itself

Slot – 1 – RC

Vocabulary used in speech or writing organizes itself in seven parts of speech (eight, if you count interjections such as Oh! and Gosh! and Fuhgeddaboudit!). Communication composed of these parts of speech must be organized by rules of grammar upon which we agree. When these rules break down, confusion and misunderstanding result. Bad grammar produces bad sentences. My favorite example from Strunk and White is this one: “As a mother of five, with another one on the way, my ironing board is always up.”

Nouns and verbs are the two indispensable parts of writing. Without one of each, no group of words can be a sentence, since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb); these strings of words begin with a capital letter, end with a period, and combine to make a complete thought which starts in the writer’s head and then leaps to the reader’s.

Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away. Even William Strunk, that Mussolini of rhetoric, recognized the delicious pliability of language. “It is an old observation,” he writes, “that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric.” Yet he goes on to add this thought, which I urge you to consider: “Unless he is certain of doing well, [the writer] will probably do best to follow the rules.”

The telling clause here is Unless he is certain of doing well. If you don’t have a rudimentary grasp of how the parts of speech translate into coherent sentences, how can you be certain that you are doing well? How will you know if you’re doing ill, for that matter? The answer, of course, is that you can’t, you won’t. One who does grasp the rudiments of grammar finds a comforting simplicity at its heart, where there need be only nouns, the words that name, and verbs, the words that act.

Take any noun, put it with any verb, and you have a sentence. It never fails. Rocks explode. Jane transmits. Mountains float. These are all perfect sentences. Many such thoughts make little rational sense, but even the stranger ones (Plums deify!) have a kind of poetic weight that’s nice. The simplicity of noun-verb construction is useful—at the very least it can provide a safety net for your writing. Strunk and White caution against too many simple sentences in a row, but simple sentences provide a path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric—all those restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, those modifying phrases, those appositives and compound-complex sentences. If you start to freak out at the sight of such unmapped territory (unmapped by you, at least), just remind yourself that rocks explode, Jane transmits, mountains float, and plums deify. Grammar is . . . the pole you grab to get your thoughts up on their feet and walking.

Q.1 All of the following statements can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT that:?

1. “Grammar Police” is a metaphor for critics who focus on linguistic rules
2. sentences do not always have to be complete.
3. the primary purpose of grammar is to ensure that sentences remain simple.
4. the subject–predicate relation is the same as the noun–verb relation.

Answer: 3

Q.2 “Take any noun, put it with any verb, and you have a sentence. It never fails. Rocks explode. Jane transmits. Mountains float.” None of the following statements can be seen as similar EXCEPT:

1. A collection of people with the same sports equipment is a sports team
2. A group of nouns arranged in a row becomes a sentence
3. . Take an apple tree, plant it in a field, and you have an orchard.
4. Take any vegetable, put some spices in it, and you have a dish.

Answer: 4

Q.3 Which one of the following quotes best captures the main concern of the passage?

1. “Strunk and White caution against too many simple sentences in a row, but simple sentences provide a path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric . . .”
2. “The telling clause here is Unless he is certain of doing well.”
3. “Bad grammar produces bad sentences.”
4. “Nouns and verbs are the two indispensable parts of writing. Without one of each, no group of words can be a sentence . . .”

Answer: 3

Q.4 Inferring from the passage, the author could be most supportive of which one of the following practices?

1. The critique of standardised rules of punctuation and capitalisation.
2. The availability of language software that will standardise the rules of grammar as an aid to writers.
3. A Creative Writing course that focuses on how to avoid the use of rhetoric.
4. . A campaign demanding that a writer’s creative license should allow the breaking of grammatical rules

Answer: 2

Q.5 Which one of the following statements, if false, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage?

1. Perish the thought that complete sentences necessarily need nouns and verbs!
2. It has been observed that writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric.
3. An understanding of grammar helps a writer decide if she/he is writing well or not
4. Regarding grammar, women writers tend to be more attentive to method and accuracy

Answer: 1

Solutions:
Q.1 Option 1 can be inferred. Refer to the following extract, “Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away.” This extract implies that “Grammar Police” is a metaphor for critics who focus on linguistic rules since fragments and floating clauses are linguistically incorrect.

Option 2, too, can be inferred. Refer to the following extract, “Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away.”

Option 4, too, can be inferred. The following extract, “since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb);” indicates this to be the case.

Option 3 cannot be inferred from the passage. The following extract, “The simplicity of noun-verb construction is useful—at the very least it can provide a safety net for your writing. Strunk and White caution against too many simple sentences in a row, but simple sentences provide a path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric—all those restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, those modifying phrases, those appositives and compound-complex sentences” strongly indicates that grammatically correct sentences can be both simple or complex.

Hence, the correct answer is option 3.

Q.2 A similar statement to “Rocks explode. Jane transmits. Mountains float” would have a noun as the subject and a verb as the predicate. Secondly, it would convey some meaning.

Option 1 has only one sentence as compared to the three sentences in the question stem. It can be eliminated.

Option 2 is clearly incorrect because there will be no verb according to the option.

Option 3 has no meaning since a single apple tree cannot comprise an orchard.

Option 4 is the correct answer as it has a noun as subject and a verb as the predicate. Secondly, it makes logical sense as well.

Hence, the correct answer is option 4.

Q.3 The passage is about the use of grammar in writing. The author states that it isn’t necessary to follow the rules of grammar in writing complete sentences – one can use fragments and floating clauses as well, if one is certain of doing well. But that is not to say that poor grammar is entirely excusable since only writers who know grammar well can get away with these grammatical anomalies. Bad grammar (in others) would lead to sentences being either poorly constructed or being very simple (Rocks explode; Jane transmits; Mountains float). This explanation is in conformity with option 3.

Options 1, 2 and 4 are not the main concerns of the passage but subsidiary issues relating to the main concern of the passage, which is the essentiality of knowing grammar while writing.

Hence, the correct answer is option 3.

Q.4 While the author has made some space for grammatical anomalies such as fragmented sentences or floating clauses this type of writing is clearly not the norm for good writing. Nor are simple sentences such as Rocks explode etc. At some point, complex grammar rules such as restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, modifying phrases, appositives and compound-complex sentences will be an essential requirement for good writing. Grammatical anomalies in writers can be excused only if the writer is certain of getting away with them, otherwise not. This explanation points to option 2 being the correct answer option.

Option 1 is incorrect as the passage is about grammar and not punctuation and capitalization.

Option 3 would contradict the author’s stand against the correct use of grammar. Avoiding the use of rhetoric would result only in simple sentences. At some point complex sentences would also be required to be written by the writer.

Option 4 would contradict the author’s viewpoint in the passage.

Hence, the correct answer is option 2.

Q.5 Refer to the following extract, “Nouns and verbs are the two indispensable parts of writing. Without one of each, no group of words can be a sentence, since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb); these strings of words begin with a capital letter, end with a period, and combine to make a complete thought which starts in the writer’s head and then leaps to the reader’s. Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away.” This extract points to option 1 as being the correct answer option. Although the statement in option 1 is false, (complete sentences do need nouns and verbs) it supports the argument made in the passage.

Options 2 and 3 are true statements. Therefore, they can be eliminated.

Option 4 is a false statement but does not support the arguments in the passage.

Hence, the correct answer is option 1.

---

---

---