11 Love and marriage

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.639 --> 00:00:02.841
- [voiceover] Intimacy, love, and marriage

00:00:02.841 --> 00:00:07.100
are three different, if
interrelated subjects.

00:00:07.100 --> 00:00:10.170
The way it's phrased right
over here, the writer is saying

00:00:10.170 --> 00:00:12.708
these are three different subjects,

00:00:12.708 --> 00:00:14.513
but they're giving a
little bone to the idea.

00:00:14.513 --> 00:00:17.504
I admit that they are interrelated.

00:00:17.504 --> 00:00:19.500
Even though they are
definitely interrelated,

00:00:19.500 --> 00:00:21.041
they are different subjects.

00:00:21.041 --> 00:00:22.508
That's how it reads there.

00:00:22.508 --> 00:00:23.975
It's not badly written.

00:00:23.975 --> 00:00:26.112
Intimacy, love, and marriage
are three different,

00:00:26.112 --> 00:00:28.310
if interrelated, subjects.

00:00:28.310 --> 00:00:31.635
It feels a little bit,
a little bit convoluted.

00:00:31.635 --> 00:00:34.177
I might want to say that
three different subjects,

00:00:34.177 --> 00:00:38.046
although they are definitely
interrelated as well

00:00:38.046 --> 00:00:40.247
or something like that.

00:00:40.247 --> 00:00:41.704
Let's just look at the other options.

00:00:41.704 --> 00:00:43.304
This is as it's written.

00:00:43.304 --> 00:00:44.446
Not horrible, but let's think

00:00:44.446 --> 00:00:46.244
of a better way to phrase that.

00:00:46.244 --> 00:00:50.572
Intimacy, love, and marriage
are three interrelated subjects

00:00:50.572 --> 00:00:53.378
being however different.

00:00:53.378 --> 00:00:55.313
That's just convoluted.

00:00:55.313 --> 00:00:58.633
The real point of it is
that they're trying to say

00:00:58.633 --> 00:01:00.502
that they're different subjects,

00:01:00.502 --> 00:01:04.511
although I'm willing
to admit that they are,

00:01:04.511 --> 00:01:06.700
they're not completely unrelated.

00:01:07.869 --> 00:01:09.636
This one right over here, this one

00:01:09.636 --> 00:01:12.039
is emphasizing that they're
interrelated subjects

00:01:12.039 --> 00:01:14.241
and giving a little bit bone
to them being different.

00:01:14.241 --> 00:01:16.436
This is a different meaning
and it's very convoluted

00:01:16.436 --> 00:01:19.170
being however different.

00:01:19.170 --> 00:01:21.911
It's unnecessarily they put
all these commas in there

00:01:22.112 --> 00:01:24.508
and it's kind of hard
to read and really long.

00:01:24.508 --> 00:01:25.709
Let's look at choice C.

00:01:25.709 --> 00:01:29.422
Intimacy, love, and marriage
are three different subjects,

00:01:29.422 --> 00:01:32.234
whereas they are interrelated.

00:01:32.234 --> 00:01:34.310
Once again, okay.

00:01:34.310 --> 00:01:35.712
They're making the point that they're

00:01:35.712 --> 00:01:37.509
three different subjects.

00:01:37.509 --> 00:01:40.176
Whereas they are interrelated.

00:01:40.176 --> 00:01:41.640
I don't know.

00:01:41.640 --> 00:01:46.640
Whereas seems kind of
formal, kind of legally.

00:01:47.838 --> 00:01:49.773
Whereas they are interrelated.

00:01:49.773 --> 00:01:53.636
That also, because of
that convoluted phrasing

00:01:53.636 --> 00:01:55.770
and using of whereas seems
a little bit unnecessary.

00:01:55.770 --> 00:01:57.506
This definitely not as
good as the first choice.

00:01:57.506 --> 00:01:59.379
Intimacy, love, and marriage
are three different,

00:01:59.379 --> 00:02:01.713
if interrelated, subjects.

00:02:01.713 --> 00:02:03.243
Intimacy, love, and marriage

00:02:03.243 --> 00:02:05.776
are three different
subjects when interrelated.

00:02:05.776 --> 00:02:07.302
That's just definitely wrong.

00:02:07.302 --> 00:02:09.579
They're not only different
when they are interrelated.

00:02:09.579 --> 00:02:12.836
That's not, that the
completely incorrect meaning.

00:02:12.836 --> 00:02:16.767
Intimacy, love, and
marriage are three subjects

00:02:16.767 --> 00:02:21.375
that are different although
being interrelated,

00:02:21.375 --> 00:02:23.646
although being interrelated.

00:02:23.646 --> 00:02:25.244
It starts off okay.

00:02:25.244 --> 00:02:27.047
Intimacy, love, and marriage

00:02:27.047 --> 00:02:30.246
are three subjects that are different.

00:02:30.246 --> 00:02:35.246
If this was a period
and then say and or but

00:02:36.176 --> 00:02:38.646
or even it was a comma,
but they are also related,

00:02:38.646 --> 00:02:40.510
then something like that
might have been okay,

00:02:40.510 --> 00:02:44.181
but although being related.

00:02:44.181 --> 00:02:46.572
This is once again, this is kind of

00:02:46.572 --> 00:02:49.368
a weird phrase that's
thrown on the end of it.

00:02:49.368 --> 00:02:52.046
I'll cross that one out.

00:02:52.046 --> 00:02:55.248
Really the best one is it as it's written.

00:02:55.248 --> 00:02:57.968
They're three different,
if interrelated subjects.

00:02:57.968 --> 00:02:59.246
It's kind of the cleanest.

00:02:59.246 --> 00:03:00.248
It's the shortest.

00:03:00.248 --> 00:03:01.570
It's getting to the point.

00:03:01.570 --> 00:03:02.974
They're different subjects,

00:03:02.974 --> 00:03:04.900
although you're giving a
little bone to the idea,

00:03:04.900 --> 00:03:06.303
throwing a little bone into the idea.

00:03:06.303 --> 00:03:08.045
They are interrelated, but they are

00:03:08.045 --> 00:03:09.778
three different subjects.

00:03:09.778 --> 00:03:12.214
I'll definitely go with choice A.


8 Romantic poets

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.820 --> 00:00:02.805
- [Voiceover] Many 18th and 19th century

00:00:02.805 --> 00:00:07.241
Romantic poets were believers in rebellion

00:00:07.241 --> 00:00:10.027
against social conventions,

00:00:10.027 --> 00:00:14.648
express strong emotion, and
the power of imagination.

00:00:14.648 --> 00:00:16.871
So, spider-sense is already sensing

00:00:16.871 --> 00:00:18.219
something a little bit off.

00:00:18.219 --> 00:00:19.961
So we're talking about many 18th

00:00:19.961 --> 00:00:22.595
and 19th century Romantic poets.

00:00:22.595 --> 00:00:24.558
So we're talking about poets,

00:00:24.558 --> 00:00:27.797
so the poets were believers in rebellion

00:00:27.797 --> 00:00:31.198
against social conventions,

00:00:31.198 --> 00:00:34.530
and express strong emotions.

00:00:34.530 --> 00:00:37.398
So, this is strange,
because the first part

00:00:37.398 --> 00:00:39.290
of this, we're listing
the things that they did.

00:00:39.290 --> 00:00:42.378
So the poets were believers in rebellion

00:00:42.378 --> 00:00:45.033
against social conventions,

00:00:45.033 --> 00:00:48.666
and they expressed strong emotions,

00:00:48.666 --> 00:00:51.870
or were believers in rebellion against

00:00:51.870 --> 00:00:54.587
social conventions,
expressed strong emotions,

00:00:54.587 --> 00:00:56.629
so what's really troubling here,

00:00:56.629 --> 00:00:59.404
why this feels off, is that this,

00:00:59.404 --> 00:01:04.037
the were believers, were,
this is in the past.

00:01:04.037 --> 00:01:06.220
This is in the past right over here.

00:01:06.220 --> 00:01:10.399
While express right over here,

00:01:10.399 --> 00:01:14.020
this is in the present.

00:01:14.020 --> 00:01:16.854
So, the verb tense is off.

00:01:16.854 --> 00:01:18.610
We're definitely talking about stuff

00:01:18.610 --> 00:01:22.143
in the past, 18th and 19th
century Romantic poets.

00:01:22.143 --> 00:01:24.140
So all of these statements about them

00:01:24.140 --> 00:01:25.596
should be in the past.

00:01:25.596 --> 00:01:27.193
So it should be, were
believers in rebellion

00:01:27.193 --> 00:01:31.567
against social conventions,
expressed strong emotions,

00:01:31.567 --> 00:01:33.515
and the power...

00:01:33.515 --> 00:01:34.893
I guess, express strong emotions,

00:01:34.893 --> 00:01:36.241
and the power of imagination.

00:01:36.241 --> 00:01:37.428
So even this is a little bit strange.

00:01:37.428 --> 00:01:39.317
So let's just read the different choices.

00:01:39.317 --> 00:01:41.077
So we don't like it as is,

00:01:41.077 --> 00:01:43.455
so let's rule out A.

00:01:43.455 --> 00:01:46.728
It's unchanged, as the
underlined part unchanged,

00:01:46.728 --> 00:01:48.579
so let's look at the other choices.

00:01:48.579 --> 00:01:51.249
Many 18th and 19th century Romantic poets

00:01:51.249 --> 00:01:52.747
are believers...

00:01:52.747 --> 00:01:53.745
So this is in the present,

00:01:53.745 --> 00:01:54.789
but clearly, we're talking about things

00:01:54.789 --> 00:01:55.659
that happened in the past.

00:01:55.659 --> 00:01:57.771
18th and 19th century poets,

00:01:57.771 --> 00:01:58.816
so we're going to rule this out,

00:01:58.816 --> 00:02:01.230
we don't like this
happening in the present.

00:02:01.230 --> 00:02:04.237
Many 18th and 19th century Romantic poets

00:02:04.237 --> 00:02:07.871
who believed in rebellion
against social conventions,

00:02:07.871 --> 00:02:09.810
express strong emotion.

00:02:09.810 --> 00:02:11.053
So once again, we're keeping this part

00:02:11.053 --> 00:02:13.280
over here, this is in the present.

00:02:13.280 --> 00:02:15.579
Express, it should be expressed.

00:02:15.579 --> 00:02:17.159
It should be in the past tense.

00:02:17.159 --> 00:02:19.677
We're talking about 18th
and 19th century poets.

00:02:19.677 --> 00:02:21.371
So we'll rule that one out.

00:02:21.371 --> 00:02:23.949
Many 18th and 19th century Romantic poets

00:02:23.949 --> 00:02:27.889
believed in rebellion
against social conventions,

00:02:27.889 --> 00:02:31.755
to express strong emotions,

00:02:31.755 --> 00:02:36.550
and the power of imagination.

00:02:36.550 --> 00:02:41.241
So this is strange,
because they didn't believe

00:02:41.241 --> 00:02:44.085
in rebellion against social conventions,

00:02:44.085 --> 00:02:48.953
so that they could
express strong emotions.

00:02:48.953 --> 00:02:51.002
The meaning here just seems off,

00:02:51.002 --> 00:02:53.985
so I hope that this
one reads a lot better.

00:02:53.985 --> 00:02:57.758
Many 18th and 19th century Romantic poets

00:02:57.758 --> 00:03:01.183
believed in rebellion
against social conventions,

00:03:01.183 --> 00:03:03.353
so far, so good, past tense.

00:03:03.353 --> 00:03:06.221
The expression of strong emotions,

00:03:06.221 --> 00:03:08.415
and the power of imaginations.

00:03:08.415 --> 00:03:10.719
So this is really neat, because,

00:03:10.719 --> 00:03:13.616
what did the poets believe in?

00:03:13.616 --> 00:03:15.276
They believed in,

00:03:15.276 --> 00:03:18.144
and once again, it's past
tense, so that's good,

00:03:18.144 --> 00:03:19.522
and they believed in three things.

00:03:19.522 --> 00:03:20.807
It's very clearly articulated.

00:03:20.807 --> 00:03:24.395
They believed in rebellion
against social conventions,

00:03:24.395 --> 00:03:25.754
that's the first thing they believed in.

00:03:25.754 --> 00:03:27.668
The second thing they believed in is

00:03:27.668 --> 00:03:30.408
the expression of strong emotions,

00:03:30.408 --> 00:03:32.393
and then the third thing
that they believed in,

00:03:32.393 --> 00:03:34.529
was the power of imagination.

00:03:34.529 --> 00:03:36.352
So this believed, this past tense,

00:03:36.352 --> 00:03:38.768
this action of believing in the past,

00:03:38.768 --> 00:03:41.496
this applies to these three clauses.

00:03:41.496 --> 00:03:43.435
They believed in rebellion
against social conventions,

00:03:43.435 --> 00:03:45.048
the expression of strong emotions,

00:03:45.048 --> 00:03:47.484
and the power of the imagination.

00:03:47.484 --> 00:03:49.146
What was really kind of bothering me

00:03:49.146 --> 00:03:51.257
up here in the original one,

00:03:51.257 --> 00:03:54.401
this verb tense, they were believers,

00:03:54.401 --> 00:03:56.618
and then they express strong emotion,

00:03:56.618 --> 00:03:58.556
and then the power of imagination.

00:03:58.556 --> 00:04:02.915
Is this something they're expressing?

00:04:02.915 --> 00:04:04.119
If all of these were things that

00:04:04.119 --> 00:04:05.712
they were expressing, they should have put

00:04:05.712 --> 00:04:08.747
the expressed out front.

00:04:08.747 --> 00:04:10.237
For several reasons, this first one

00:04:10.237 --> 00:04:12.257
was very strangely formed.

00:04:12.257 --> 00:04:16.214
But we really like E.


18 Sound of sap

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.471 --> 00:00:02.266
- Every spring in rurr--

00:00:02.266 --> 00:00:03.993
Every spring in rurr--

00:00:03.993 --> 00:00:04.712
(laughs)

00:00:04.712 --> 00:00:05.786
It's hard to say!

00:00:05.786 --> 00:00:08.743
Every spring in rural Vermont

00:00:08.743 --> 00:00:10.358
the sound of sap

00:00:10.358 --> 00:00:13.878
dripping into galvanized metal buckets

00:00:13.878 --> 00:00:17.492
signal the beginning of
the traditional season

00:00:17.492 --> 00:00:19.258
for gathering maple syrup.

00:00:19.258 --> 00:00:21.130
Or maybe we have no error.

00:00:21.130 --> 00:00:23.443
So, what's the real subject here?

00:00:23.443 --> 00:00:24.691
Every spring in rurr--

00:00:24.691 --> 00:00:25.373
(laughs)

00:00:25.373 --> 00:00:26.609
I can't say that!

00:00:26.609 --> 00:00:29.789
Every spring in rural Vermont

00:00:29.789 --> 00:00:32.230
the sound of sap dripping

00:00:32.230 --> 00:00:34.149
into galvanized metal buckets.

00:00:34.149 --> 00:00:35.316
So this is the subject here,

00:00:35.316 --> 00:00:37.604
"the sound of sap dripping

00:00:37.604 --> 00:00:39.345
"into galvanized metal buckets."

00:00:39.345 --> 00:00:40.949
Now, is that singular or plural?

00:00:40.949 --> 00:00:42.628
We're talking about the sound,

00:00:42.628 --> 00:00:44.265
we're talking about a
sound, the sound here,

00:00:44.265 --> 00:00:45.793
we're not talking about the sounds!

00:00:45.793 --> 00:00:47.014
So this right over here,

00:00:47.475 --> 00:00:48.177
this right over here,

00:00:48.177 --> 00:00:51.113
is a singular subject.

00:00:51.514 --> 00:00:52.886
Now, what do they do with the verb?

00:00:52.886 --> 00:00:53.978
Well the verb right over here,

00:00:53.978 --> 00:00:56.565
they have the plural form
of the verb "signal."

00:00:56.565 --> 00:00:57.920
If we had the sounds,

00:00:57.920 --> 00:00:59.889
we could say, "the sounds signal

00:00:59.889 --> 00:01:01.412
"the beginning of the traditional season,"

00:01:01.888 --> 00:01:02.713
but we have only,

00:01:02.713 --> 00:01:03.897
we only have one sound,

00:01:03.897 --> 00:01:05.177
we have the sound.

00:01:05.177 --> 00:01:06.051
The sound, we need--

00:01:06.051 --> 00:01:07.082
it's a singular subject,

00:01:07.082 --> 00:01:08.465
we need a singular verb.

00:01:08.465 --> 00:01:11.381
So we need "signals" right over here,

00:01:11.381 --> 00:01:14.703
so the error is in Part C.


23 Greek mythology

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.587
During the nineteenth century, Greek mythology

00:00:04.587 --> 00:00:08.601
acquired renewed significance when both poets and

00:00:08.601 --> 00:00:12.755
painters turned to the ancient myths for subject matter.

00:00:12.755 --> 00:00:14.835
And we have no error.

00:00:14.835 --> 00:00:16.234
So let's just read this a little bit carefully.

00:00:16.234 --> 00:00:20.758
The first time I read through it, my brain really didn't pick up something that seemed weird.

00:00:20.758 --> 00:00:24.389
So, during the nineteenth century, Greek mythology

00:00:24.389 --> 00:00:28.468
acquired renewed significance, that seems reasonable so far

00:00:28.468 --> 00:00:34.358
when both poets and painters turned to, turned to

00:00:34.358 --> 00:00:37.000
the ancient myths for subject matter.

00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:39.560
Yeah this all seems pretty good.

00:00:39.560 --> 00:00:41.897
I would say no error.


21 Air pollutants

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.130
"Most major air pollutants cannot be seen,

00:00:03.131 --> 00:00:05.736
although large amounts of them concentrated

00:00:05.736 --> 00:00:10.685
in cities are visible as smog". So this

00:00:10.685 --> 00:00:13.428
actually feels decent. It's not as cleanly

00:00:13.428 --> 00:00:16.486
written as I might like, but it doesn't

00:00:16.486 --> 00:00:18.246
seem like there's any outright errors,

00:00:18.246 --> 00:00:20.415
especially where they're underlined. So "of

00:00:20.415 --> 00:00:25.205
them", well the "them" is referring to the

00:00:25.205 --> 00:00:27.606
"major air pollutants". So this completely

00:00:27.606 --> 00:00:29.797
cool. "Large amounts of them concentrated

00:00:29.797 --> 00:00:32.986
in cities", well that's just saying that

00:00:32.986 --> 00:00:35.511
these are the "large amounts" amounts of

00:00:35.511 --> 00:00:36.440
the air pollutants "concentrated in

00:00:36.440 --> 00:00:38.967
cities". This is making grammatical sense,

00:00:38.967 --> 00:00:41.563
"are visible", so we're talking about

00:00:41.563 --> 00:00:44.530
something that's plural so it completely

00:00:44.530 --> 00:00:46.597
makes sense to use the plural form of the

00:00:46.597 --> 00:00:50.342
verb, so "are visible as smog". So this

00:00:50.342 --> 00:00:52.734
makes complete grammatical sense. So I

00:00:52.734 --> 00:00:56.734
would say that this has no error.


22 Car headlights

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.563 --> 00:00:03.323
- The light emitted by
high-intensity-discharge

00:00:03.323 --> 00:00:06.635
car headlights are very
effective in activating

00:00:06.635 --> 00:00:09.086
the reflective paints of road markers,

00:00:09.086 --> 00:00:12.230
thereby making driving at night safer,

00:00:12.230 --> 00:00:13.910
and maybe we have no error.

00:00:13.910 --> 00:00:15.123
So let's just think
about this a little bit.

00:00:15.123 --> 00:00:16.175
What's the subject here?

00:00:16.175 --> 00:00:18.743
Well, the subject here
is the light emitted by

00:00:18.743 --> 00:00:21.643
high-intensity-discharge car headlights.

00:00:21.643 --> 00:00:24.716
Now is this a singular
subject or a plural subject?

00:00:24.716 --> 00:00:27.355
Well, we're really just
talking about the light.

00:00:27.355 --> 00:00:28.207
We're talking about the light,

00:00:28.207 --> 00:00:30.543
and then they tell us what type
of light, the light emitted

00:00:30.543 --> 00:00:33.443
by high-intensity-discharge
car headlights.

00:00:33.443 --> 00:00:36.770
So the light is clearly singular.

00:00:36.770 --> 00:00:39.559
When you read the entire subject,

00:00:39.559 --> 00:00:41.863
you might get a little
confused because it ends

00:00:41.863 --> 00:00:42.846
when you're talking about

00:00:42.846 --> 00:00:46.013
emitted by high-intensity-discharge
car headlights.

00:00:46.013 --> 00:00:47.206
And you see that headlights,

00:00:47.206 --> 00:00:48.299
your brain might be saying,

00:00:48.299 --> 00:00:49.447
you know, maybe this is plural.

00:00:49.447 --> 00:00:51.256
But remember, we're really
talking about the light,

00:00:51.256 --> 00:00:54.918
and this whole part that
I'm underlining in green

00:00:54.918 --> 00:00:56.586
is really just describing

00:00:56.586 --> 00:00:58.718
the light that we're talking about.

00:00:58.718 --> 00:01:01.407
So the subject is really
a singular subject.

00:01:01.407 --> 00:01:05.853
So the verb that goes with
it also needs to be singular,

00:01:05.853 --> 00:01:08.866
but if we look at underlined
part A right over here,

00:01:08.866 --> 00:01:11.316
are is not the singular version of is.

00:01:11.316 --> 00:01:12.715
It's the plural version.

00:01:12.715 --> 00:01:14.066
So this right over here is plural.

00:01:14.066 --> 00:01:15.506
It should be singular.

00:01:15.506 --> 00:01:17.904
And to really test why this sounds strange

00:01:17.904 --> 00:01:20.566
or why this doesn't make sense is,

00:01:20.566 --> 00:01:22.276
ignore this green part right over here

00:01:22.276 --> 00:01:23.466
and just test it out that way.

00:01:23.466 --> 00:01:26.346
If I just said, the
light are very effective,

00:01:26.346 --> 00:01:28.265
that makes no sense.

00:01:28.265 --> 00:01:33.265
I have a singular subject
with a plural verb.

00:01:33.931 --> 00:01:35.986
So this has to be a singular verb.

00:01:35.986 --> 00:01:37.633
It has to match the subject.

00:01:37.633 --> 00:01:39.246
This is much better.

00:01:39.246 --> 00:01:40.502
The light is.

00:01:40.502 --> 00:01:43.586
Singular subject, singular verb.

00:01:43.586 --> 00:01:46.326
The light is very effective.

00:01:46.326 --> 00:01:48.329
So the error is in part A.

00:01:48.329 --> 00:01:51.166
This are should be an is.


12 Roller coaster

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.521 --> 00:00:02.906
- America's first roller coaster ride,

00:00:02.906 --> 00:00:07.679
which opened in 1884 at
Coney Island, Brooklyn,

00:00:07.679 --> 00:00:12.679
and capable of a top speed
of only six miles per hour,

00:00:13.115 --> 00:00:16.743
and then we have the choice
E, which is no error.

00:00:16.743 --> 00:00:20.819
So let's think about if there
is an error here, where it is.

00:00:20.819 --> 00:00:22.737
So, America's first roller coaster ride,

00:00:22.737 --> 00:00:26.380
which opened in 1884 at
Coney Island, Brooklyn,

00:00:26.380 --> 00:00:29.915
and capable of a top speed
of only six miles per hour.

00:00:29.915 --> 00:00:30.935
So the way it's written right now,

00:00:30.935 --> 00:00:32.699
we never even get to knowing

00:00:32.699 --> 00:00:34.981
what America's first roller coaster did.

00:00:34.981 --> 00:00:37.879
Both of these clauses,
which opened in 1884

00:00:37.879 --> 00:00:40.839
at Coney Island, Brooklyn,
that's one that kind of describes

00:00:40.839 --> 00:00:41.883
America's first roller coaster,

00:00:41.883 --> 00:00:43.099
and then another clause,

00:00:43.099 --> 00:00:47.039
and capable of a top speed
of only six miles per hour.

00:00:47.039 --> 00:00:48.313
That also, the way it's written,

00:00:48.313 --> 00:00:50.320
it's still kind of just describing

00:00:50.320 --> 00:00:51.559
America's first roller coaster,

00:00:51.559 --> 00:00:53.685
but it didn't say what
it's actually doing.

00:00:53.685 --> 00:00:55.305
If I were to say where the error is,

00:00:55.305 --> 00:00:56.879
if I'm trying to convey this meaning,

00:00:56.879 --> 00:00:58.017
I would have said something like,

00:00:58.017 --> 00:01:00.460
America's first roller coaster ride,

00:01:00.460 --> 00:01:03.520
which opened in 1884 at
Coney Island, Brooklyn,

00:01:03.520 --> 00:01:08.479
was capable of a top speed
of only six miles per hour.

00:01:08.479 --> 00:01:10.786
So I would have changed and capable of.

00:01:10.786 --> 00:01:13.759
I would have changed
this to was capable of,

00:01:13.759 --> 00:01:17.282
was capable of a top speed
of only six miles per hour.

00:01:17.282 --> 00:01:21.398
So the error here is in part B.


3 Central Park

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.674 --> 00:00:02.520
- [Voiceover] The landscape
artist who designed

00:00:02.520 --> 00:00:05.457
New York City's Central
Park believed that providing

00:00:05.457 --> 00:00:08.916
scenic settings accessible
to all would not only

00:00:08.916 --> 00:00:11.994
benefit the public's
physical and mental health

00:00:11.994 --> 00:00:16.357
and also foster a sense of democracy.

00:00:16.357 --> 00:00:19.283
So immediately this one sounds weird,

00:00:19.283 --> 00:00:21.773
and the reason why it sounds weird is that

00:00:21.773 --> 00:00:25.529
we start saying, "not
only," and when you hear

00:00:25.529 --> 00:00:27.321
a not only or when you read a not only,

00:00:27.321 --> 00:00:30.207
you expect to see a but also.

00:00:30.207 --> 00:00:32.121
So you would normally
expect to see someone say,

00:00:32.121 --> 00:00:37.121
"Hey, I not only," say, "ate a sandwich,

00:00:37.799 --> 00:00:42.622
"but I also," or "but also.."

00:00:42.622 --> 00:00:46.812
Not only did he eat a
sandwich but also he ate a...

00:00:46.812 --> 00:00:50.381
Or he drank a cola, or he had some fries.

00:00:50.381 --> 00:00:51.875
Or, but he also.

00:00:51.875 --> 00:00:55.278
So you would expect a but also as part

00:00:55.278 --> 00:00:58.016
of that construction, and we see over here

00:00:58.016 --> 00:01:00.832
they do an and also.

00:01:00.832 --> 00:01:03.360
So I don't like it as it is,

00:01:03.360 --> 00:01:04.663
so I'm gonna rule out the first choice.

00:01:04.663 --> 00:01:06.525
That's always the one as it is.

00:01:06.525 --> 00:01:08.133
So do they have a but also here?

00:01:08.133 --> 00:01:09.094
And they do.

00:01:09.094 --> 00:01:11.351
But also foster a sense of democracy.

00:01:11.351 --> 00:01:12.539
So really the right one...

00:01:12.539 --> 00:01:14.763
Because whenever you see a not only

00:01:14.763 --> 00:01:17.468
you also want to see a but also.

00:01:17.468 --> 00:01:19.685
So the landscape artist who designed

00:01:19.685 --> 00:01:22.483
New York City's Central
Park believed that providing

00:01:22.483 --> 00:01:26.074
scenic settings accessible
to all would not only

00:01:26.074 --> 00:01:29.181
benefit the public's
physical and mental health

00:01:29.181 --> 00:01:33.145
but also foster a sense of democracy.

00:01:33.145 --> 00:01:35.442
Yeah, that sounds exactly right.

00:01:35.442 --> 00:01:37.198
The not only says, "Hey,
not only did you do

00:01:37.198 --> 00:01:38.925
"this one thing, but you did other things.

00:01:38.925 --> 00:01:40.879
"But you also did this other stuff."

00:01:40.879 --> 00:01:44.879
So this one is definitely the best answer.


7 Dramatic monologue

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.919 --> 00:00:04.230
- A poetic form congenial
to Robert Browning.

00:00:04.230 --> 00:00:05.795
So it's kind of a form
that was good to him,

00:00:05.795 --> 00:00:06.953
that worked well for him.

00:00:06.953 --> 00:00:10.103
A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning

00:00:10.103 --> 00:00:12.547
was the dramatic monologue.

00:00:12.980 --> 00:00:15.641
It let him explore a character's mind

00:00:15.641 --> 00:00:17.855
without the simplifications demanded

00:00:17.855 --> 00:00:19.496
by stage productions.

00:00:20.030 --> 00:00:21.674
So just the way I read it,

00:00:21.674 --> 00:00:24.195
I had more pause here than just a comma.

00:00:24.195 --> 00:00:26.022
If I really read it
actually with the comma,

00:00:26.022 --> 00:00:27.933
it would have been "A
poetic form congenial

00:00:27.933 --> 00:00:30.270
"to Robert Browning was
the dramatic monologue,

00:00:30.270 --> 00:00:31.997
"it let him explore a character's mind

00:00:31.997 --> 00:00:34.008
"without the simplifications demanded by

00:00:34.008 --> 00:00:35.222
"stage productions."

00:00:35.430 --> 00:00:37.786
This is really kind of
a separate expression

00:00:37.786 --> 00:00:38.711
right over here.

00:00:38.711 --> 00:00:40.328
It really demands more pause.

00:00:40.328 --> 00:00:42.542
I would think about,
instead of a comma here,

00:00:42.542 --> 00:00:44.127
you could put a period there,

00:00:44.127 --> 00:00:45.566
kind of a full stop.

00:00:45.692 --> 00:00:47.582
Or maybe a semi-colon, which says,

00:00:47.582 --> 00:00:48.902
well it's a little bit in between.

00:00:48.902 --> 00:00:51.381
It's a related thought,

00:00:51.381 --> 00:00:53.148
but we're gonna pause a little bit more.

00:00:53.148 --> 00:00:54.814
So I would put at least
a semi-colon there,

00:00:54.814 --> 00:00:56.109
if not a period.

00:00:56.217 --> 00:00:59.441
So let's see what else they put over here.

00:00:59.751 --> 00:01:01.803
A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning

00:01:01.803 --> 00:01:03.655
was the dramatic monologue--

00:01:03.655 --> 00:01:05.137
Okay, well, obviously this was as is.

00:01:05.137 --> 00:01:07.136
We already said that we
don't really like that one.

00:01:07.262 --> 00:01:09.435
A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning

00:01:09.435 --> 00:01:11.610
was the dramatic monologe,

00:01:11.610 --> 00:01:15.851
which let him explore a
character's mind without

00:01:15.851 --> 00:01:18.873
the simplifications demanded
by stage productions.

00:01:19.060 --> 00:01:20.890
Actually this one works pretty well,

00:01:20.890 --> 00:01:22.779
because now it's not a separate

00:01:22.779 --> 00:01:24.200
statement right over here.

00:01:24.200 --> 00:01:28.061
Here, we have this
relative pronoun "which",

00:01:28.061 --> 00:01:29.727
and you have the dependent clause,

00:01:29.727 --> 00:01:31.719
so it's really telling us more about

00:01:31.719 --> 00:01:36.655
why he, the dramatic
monologue was a poetic form

00:01:36.655 --> 00:01:38.580
congenial to Robert Browning.

00:01:38.707 --> 00:01:41.470
So because it's not an
independent statement,

00:01:41.470 --> 00:01:43.320
it actually works well with a comma.

00:01:43.320 --> 00:01:45.371
Here, I don't feel the
need to put a period

00:01:45.371 --> 00:01:46.626
or a semi-colon.

00:01:46.691 --> 00:01:48.378
So this is actually a pretty good,

00:01:48.378 --> 00:01:50.470
this is actually a pretty good solution.

00:01:50.470 --> 00:01:51.685
But let's look at the other ones.

00:01:51.914 --> 00:01:54.493
A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning

00:01:54.493 --> 00:01:59.493
was the dramatic monologue that lets him

00:01:59.573 --> 00:02:02.884
explore a character's mind without the

00:02:02.884 --> 00:02:07.045
simplifications demanded
by stage productions.

00:02:07.134 --> 00:02:10.213
So this feels, when
they're using "that" here,

00:02:10.213 --> 00:02:12.752
it feels much more like they're telling us

00:02:12.752 --> 00:02:16.755
a certain type of dramatic monologue.

00:02:16.755 --> 00:02:18.605
So not just all dramatic monologues,

00:02:18.605 --> 00:02:21.246
but it was in particular
the dramatic monologue

00:02:21.246 --> 00:02:24.613
that lets him explore a character's mind.

00:02:24.638 --> 00:02:26.865
But we're not saying that that's the only

00:02:26.865 --> 00:02:28.246
type of dramatic monologue.

00:02:28.246 --> 00:02:29.587
We're saying all dramatic monologues

00:02:29.587 --> 00:02:31.943
let him explore a character's mind

00:02:31.943 --> 00:02:34.381
without the simplifications demanded by

00:02:34.381 --> 00:02:35.397
stage productions.

00:02:35.397 --> 00:02:36.251
That's what a dramatic monologue is,

00:02:36.251 --> 00:02:38.259
it's just someone talking
without other stuff

00:02:38.259 --> 00:02:41.431
really going on and all
this other fancy stuff.

00:02:41.431 --> 00:02:43.358
So this, to me, see, kind of changes

00:02:43.358 --> 00:02:44.435
the meaning of it.

00:02:44.435 --> 00:02:49.435
It doesn't, it's not wrong grammatically.

00:02:50.266 --> 00:02:53.983
A dramatic monologue that lets him explore

00:02:53.983 --> 00:02:55.101
a character's mind.

00:02:55.101 --> 00:02:56.016
But it's changing the meaning.

00:02:56.016 --> 00:02:58.027
It's saying, it feels like it's qualifying

00:02:58.027 --> 00:02:59.713
the type of dramatic monologue.

00:02:59.713 --> 00:03:01.846
But the intention of the sentence is

00:03:01.846 --> 00:03:04.671
that all, that the reason why it was,

00:03:04.671 --> 00:03:08.754
that dramatic monologues are
good for Robert Browning,

00:03:08.754 --> 00:03:10.553
are that all dramatic monologues

00:03:10.553 --> 00:03:12.381
let him explore a character's mind without

00:03:12.381 --> 00:03:15.018
the simplifications demanded
by stage productions.

00:03:15.144 --> 00:03:16.562
So I'll rule this one out.

00:03:16.588 --> 00:03:18.396
I'll kind of, a weak scratch out.

00:03:18.396 --> 00:03:19.127
It's not, you know,

00:03:19.127 --> 00:03:20.590
it's just kind of changing the meaning.

00:03:20.590 --> 00:03:21.613
So let's get these other ones.

00:03:22.288 --> 00:03:24.969
A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning

00:03:24.969 --> 00:03:28.546
was the dramatic monologue, semi-colon,

00:03:28.546 --> 00:03:32.316
letting him explore a character's mind

00:03:32.316 --> 00:03:34.042
without the simplifications demanded

00:03:34.042 --> 00:03:35.460
by stage productions.

00:03:35.952 --> 00:03:37.841
So they're giving me the semi-colon that I

00:03:37.841 --> 00:03:39.914
kind of wanted in the beginning,

00:03:39.914 --> 00:03:43.448
but then they're making this into,

00:03:43.448 --> 00:03:45.175
it's not no longer, the second,

00:03:45.175 --> 00:03:47.025
what we have after that is no longer

00:03:47.025 --> 00:03:48.893
kind of an independent phrase like it was,

00:03:48.893 --> 00:03:51.779
or an independent almost clause,

00:03:51.779 --> 00:03:53.019
like it was before.

00:03:53.019 --> 00:03:54.883
Now we're saying letting him explore...

00:03:55.050 --> 00:03:58.484
This actually would have felt
better with a comma here.

00:03:58.484 --> 00:04:01.120
So I'm gonna throw this one out.

00:04:01.674 --> 00:04:03.563
A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning

00:04:03.563 --> 00:04:06.528
was the dramatic monologue
by letting him do--

00:04:06.528 --> 00:04:10.998
So this one was dramatic monlogue,

00:04:10.998 --> 00:04:13.656
and then we immediately go into "by".

00:04:14.086 --> 00:04:17.210
By letting him do exploration.

00:04:17.369 --> 00:04:21.616
So this was, I guess, how
the dramatic monologue...

00:04:21.616 --> 00:04:24.806
But once again, B is much clearer

00:04:24.806 --> 00:04:27.244
in that they're saying
the dramatic monologue,

00:04:27.244 --> 00:04:29.986
which, which is referring
to the dramatic monologue,

00:04:29.986 --> 00:04:32.261
lets him explore a character's mind.

00:04:32.261 --> 00:04:33.541
So I'd rule this one out.

00:04:33.541 --> 00:04:35.391
This one actually is quite awkward

00:04:35.391 --> 00:04:36.747
in the way it's phrased.


5 Book costs

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.501 --> 00:00:03.261
- [Voiceover] Given the
cost of a hardcover book,

00:00:03.261 --> 00:00:07.721
the price of it typically
hovers around $25,

00:00:07.721 --> 00:00:10.641
many consumers ask their book dealers,

00:00:10.641 --> 00:00:12.901
"When will the paperback be out?"

00:00:12.901 --> 00:00:13.755
So let's just think about this.

00:00:13.755 --> 00:00:15.976
Given the cost of a hardcover book.

00:00:15.976 --> 00:00:17.045
So this is what we're talking about.

00:00:17.045 --> 00:00:19.681
We're talking about the
cost of a hardcover book.

00:00:19.681 --> 00:00:23.774
The price of it typically
hovers around $25.

00:00:23.774 --> 00:00:26.081
So they're trying to give us
a little bit more information

00:00:26.081 --> 00:00:29.021
on the cost of a hardcover book.

00:00:29.021 --> 00:00:31.022
But this clause here that they give us,

00:00:31.022 --> 00:00:34.741
the price of it typically
hovers around $25,

00:00:34.741 --> 00:00:37.248
is very wordy, and it's very clumsy.

00:00:37.248 --> 00:00:38.621
What they're really saying,

00:00:38.621 --> 00:00:40.427
given the cost of a hardcover book,

00:00:40.427 --> 00:00:43.737
which typically hovers around $25.

00:00:43.737 --> 00:00:45.914
So I'm going to look for
a phrase that's closer to

00:00:45.914 --> 00:00:48.287
which typically hovers around $25.

00:00:48.287 --> 00:00:50.780
So let's look at our choices.

00:00:50.780 --> 00:00:52.220
So the first choice is always

00:00:52.220 --> 00:00:53.980
exactly as they wrote it here.

00:00:53.980 --> 00:00:55.083
So I'm going to rule that one out,

00:00:55.083 --> 00:00:58.830
because it really does feel
very wordy and very clumsy.

00:00:58.830 --> 00:01:00.580
Given the cost of a hardcover book,

00:01:00.580 --> 00:01:05.580
and typically it hovers
at a price around $25.

00:01:05.627 --> 00:01:10.627
Well once again, this is a
little bit strangely worded.

00:01:11.120 --> 00:01:13.376
And typically it hovers.

00:01:13.376 --> 00:01:17.640
We really want to have a
relative pronoun, which, here.

00:01:17.640 --> 00:01:20.240
We're talking about the
cost, which does something.

00:01:20.240 --> 00:01:22.730
Which hovers around $25.

00:01:22.730 --> 00:01:25.876
So choice C actually seems
to do the trick for us.

00:01:25.876 --> 00:01:29.023
Given the cost of a hardcover book, which,

00:01:29.023 --> 00:01:32.002
and what is the relative
pronoun which referring to?

00:01:32.002 --> 00:01:34.242
It's referring to the
cost of a hardcover book,

00:01:34.242 --> 00:01:38.182
which typically hovers around $25,

00:01:38.182 --> 00:01:40.282
many consumers ask their book dealers,

00:01:40.282 --> 00:01:42.049
"When will the paperback be out?"

00:01:42.049 --> 00:01:43.482
Well, this one feels really good.

00:01:43.482 --> 00:01:45.677
It conveys the exact meaning that we want.

00:01:45.677 --> 00:01:46.901
It's much shorter.

00:01:46.901 --> 00:01:48.621
Which typically hovers
is much shorter than

00:01:48.621 --> 00:01:51.021
the price of it typically hovers,

00:01:51.021 --> 00:01:52.661
and it's a lot less convoluted.

00:01:52.661 --> 00:01:54.536
So C is definitely where I'd like to go.

00:01:54.536 --> 00:01:56.601
Now let's just look at the other choices.

00:01:56.601 --> 00:01:58.681
In that it typically hovers.

00:01:58.681 --> 00:02:00.981
Given the cost of a hardcover book,

00:02:00.981 --> 00:02:04.204
in that it typically hovers.

00:02:04.204 --> 00:02:05.943
Well once again, you're
just really meaning to say

00:02:05.943 --> 00:02:07.299
which typically hovers.

00:02:07.299 --> 00:02:10.723
In that, you're doing
this prepositional phrase.

00:02:10.723 --> 00:02:12.803
It's a very strange thing.

00:02:12.803 --> 00:02:14.355
Just to kind of give a little bit

00:02:14.355 --> 00:02:18.015
of an extra context of the cost.

00:02:18.015 --> 00:02:20.622
So I'm going to rule that one out.

00:02:20.622 --> 00:02:22.422
They typically hover.

00:02:22.422 --> 00:02:23.971
So this one, they, you're talking about

00:02:23.971 --> 00:02:27.582
something in the plural,
and the cost is singular.

00:02:27.582 --> 00:02:28.849
The cost of a hardcover book,

00:02:28.849 --> 00:02:30.370
at least the way it's being referred to.

00:02:30.370 --> 00:02:31.802
So we're not saying they.

00:02:31.802 --> 00:02:36.802
This is plural, while
the relative pronoun,

00:02:38.822 --> 00:02:40.342
or in this case, just the pronoun,

00:02:40.342 --> 00:02:43.714
is referring to is singular, the cost.

00:02:43.714 --> 00:02:44.960
Singular.

00:02:44.960 --> 00:02:46.549
So that's why this one right over here

00:02:46.549 --> 00:02:47.519
doesn't make any sense.

00:02:47.519 --> 00:02:48.204
So, yeah.

00:02:48.204 --> 00:02:50.196
Given the cost of a hardcover book,

00:02:50.196 --> 00:02:53.964
which typically hovers around $25,

00:02:53.964 --> 00:02:56.204
many consumers ask their book dealers,

00:02:56.204 --> 00:02:58.285
"When will the paperback be out?"

00:02:58.285 --> 00:02:59.804
That feels very good.


25 Shakespearean character

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.475 --> 00:00:02.519
- In order for the audience to believe in

00:00:02.519 --> 00:00:06.503
and be engaged by a
Shakespearean character,

00:00:06.503 --> 00:00:10.798
they have to come across as
a real person on the stage.

00:00:10.798 --> 00:00:12.285
Or maybe we have no error.

00:00:12.285 --> 00:00:13.872
So you know when I read
that, when they said,

00:00:13.872 --> 00:00:17.030
"they have to come across as
a real person on the stage,"

00:00:17.030 --> 00:00:18.771
the way that the sentence was constructed,

00:00:18.771 --> 00:00:20.407
it looks like they're
referring to the audience.

00:00:20.407 --> 00:00:23.560
In order for the audience
to do this thing,

00:00:23.560 --> 00:00:26.061
they, the audience, has to come across

00:00:26.061 --> 00:00:27.387
as a real person on the stage.

00:00:27.387 --> 00:00:28.526
Well that's not what
they're talking about.

00:00:28.526 --> 00:00:30.511
They're really talking about the actors.

00:00:30.511 --> 00:00:32.645
So this "they" here is confusing.

00:00:32.645 --> 00:00:33.670
It could be...

00:00:33.670 --> 00:00:34.544
Are they talking about the audience?

00:00:34.544 --> 00:00:37.421
Are they talking about
the characters on stage?

00:00:37.421 --> 00:00:40.279
So I would say the error
right here is in part C,

00:00:40.279 --> 00:00:42.074
and I would change "they" to...

00:00:42.880 --> 00:00:44.599
If I were editing this,

00:00:44.599 --> 00:00:47.015
I would change this to "the actors."

00:00:47.015 --> 00:00:50.391
"The actors" have to come across as a...

00:00:53.951 --> 00:00:56.317
You need to say "the
actors" have to come across,

00:00:56.317 --> 00:01:00.021
have to come across as real people,

00:01:00.021 --> 00:01:03.202
or you could say "the actor."

00:01:03.202 --> 00:01:07.058
"The actor" has to come across

00:01:07.058 --> 00:01:09.083
as a real person on the stage.

00:01:09.083 --> 00:01:10.151
So that would feel a lot better.

00:01:10.151 --> 00:01:12.967
In order for the audience to believe in

00:01:12.967 --> 00:01:15.617
and be engaged by a
Shakespearean character...

00:01:15.617 --> 00:01:16.330
And that's good.

00:01:16.330 --> 00:01:17.947
We're doing "a Shakespearean character,"

00:01:17.947 --> 00:01:19.770
not "Shakespearean characters."

00:01:19.770 --> 00:01:22.534
So that's why it's good to do
the singular right over here.

00:01:22.534 --> 00:01:25.204
"The actor" has to come across

00:01:25.204 --> 00:01:26.934
as a real person on the stage.

00:01:26.934 --> 00:01:28.246
So this feels much better.

00:01:28.246 --> 00:01:30.092
And so I would definitely say

00:01:30.092 --> 00:01:32.493
the error was in part C.


17 Nobel prize

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.938 --> 00:00:04.389
- When Marie Curie shared the
1903 Nobel Prize for Physics

00:00:04.389 --> 00:00:06.423
with two other scientists,

00:00:06.423 --> 00:00:09.983
her husband Pierre Curie
and Henri Becquerel,

00:00:09.983 --> 00:00:13.315
she had been the first
woman to win the prize,

00:00:13.315 --> 00:00:15.283
or maybe we have no error.

00:00:15.283 --> 00:00:18.484
So what feels a little
fishy is this had been,

00:00:18.484 --> 00:00:20.763
this had been right over here.

00:00:20.763 --> 00:00:23.399
We're referring to a
specific moment in the past.

00:00:23.399 --> 00:00:27.963
When Marie Curie shared
the 1903 Nobel Prize.

00:00:27.963 --> 00:00:30.723
So if we're speaking a
specific moment in the past,

00:00:30.723 --> 00:00:35.003
so if this is the
present, this is the now,

00:00:35.003 --> 00:00:37.998
and we're speaking about a
specific moment in the past,

00:00:37.998 --> 00:00:40.383
if that is the past right over there,

00:00:40.383 --> 00:00:42.703
you would just use the simple past tense.

00:00:42.703 --> 00:00:44.123
So instead of saying she had been,

00:00:44.123 --> 00:00:46.423
you would just say she was.

00:00:46.423 --> 00:00:48.598
She was the first woman to win the prize.

00:00:48.598 --> 00:00:51.112
Let's read that without
this little clause here.

00:00:51.112 --> 00:00:53.926
When Marie Curie shared
the 1903 Nobel Prize

00:00:53.926 --> 00:00:56.543
for Physics with two other scientists,

00:00:56.543 --> 00:01:00.345
she was the first woman to win the prize.

00:01:00.345 --> 00:01:01.823
Yeah, that sounds right.

00:01:01.823 --> 00:01:04.352
So the error right over here is C.

00:01:04.352 --> 00:01:07.883
You would use had been, that's
actually the past perfect.

00:01:07.883 --> 00:01:12.883
You kind of throw that had before the verb

00:01:13.303 --> 00:01:15.284
to make the past perfect

00:01:15.284 --> 00:01:16.903
when you're talking about
something that happened

00:01:16.903 --> 00:01:18.946
before something in the past.

00:01:18.946 --> 00:01:23.946
So you could say, before I ate lunch,

00:01:24.103 --> 00:01:27.298
I had washed the car.

00:01:27.298 --> 00:01:29.230
So you would use that past perfect to say,

00:01:29.230 --> 00:01:31.338
look, I washed my car before

00:01:31.338 --> 00:01:32.770
I did something else in the past,

00:01:32.770 --> 00:01:36.298
before I actually ate my lunch.

00:01:36.298 --> 00:01:37.843
But here we're not talking about

00:01:37.843 --> 00:01:40.890
her doing something before
something in the past.

00:01:40.890 --> 00:01:42.523
We're talking about
something that's happening

00:01:42.523 --> 00:01:44.683
in an exact moment in the past.

00:01:44.683 --> 00:01:46.949
When she won the Nobel Prize,

00:01:46.949 --> 00:01:50.283
she was the first woman to win the prize.

00:01:50.283 --> 00:01:52.663
So the error here is in C.


10 Oil imports

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.425 --> 00:00:02.541
- [Voiceover] When for the
first time the United States

00:00:02.541 --> 00:00:05.101
imported more oil than it exported,

00:00:05.101 --> 00:00:07.121
Americans should have realized

00:00:07.121 --> 00:00:09.161
than an energy crisis was imminent

00:00:09.161 --> 00:00:11.867
and could happen in the future.

00:00:11.867 --> 00:00:13.441
So this was a little strange,

00:00:13.441 --> 00:00:17.044
because if you're saying that
something is or was imminent,

00:00:17.044 --> 00:00:20.113
so imminent means it's about to happen,

00:00:20.113 --> 00:00:21.713
and you're fairly sure
it's going to happen.

00:00:21.713 --> 00:00:24.001
You have a high degree of confidence

00:00:24.001 --> 00:00:25.748
that something is about to happen.

00:00:25.748 --> 00:00:27.764
Then you're saying this is imminent.

00:00:27.764 --> 00:00:29.888
You're pretty much sure
it's about to happen.

00:00:29.888 --> 00:00:31.881
So they're saying it was imminent,

00:00:31.881 --> 00:00:34.811
but then they say, and
could happen in the future.

00:00:34.811 --> 00:00:36.709
Well if you're saying
something is imminent,

00:00:36.709 --> 00:00:38.265
then you shouldn't have
the uncertainty of,

00:00:38.265 --> 00:00:39.729
well, maybe it happens in the future,

00:00:39.729 --> 00:00:41.822
maybe it could happen in the future.

00:00:41.822 --> 00:00:44.354
This seems a little
bit contradictory here.

00:00:44.354 --> 00:00:47.109
So I don't like it as it's written.

00:00:47.109 --> 00:00:51.818
You're either imminent or it
could happen in the future.

00:00:51.818 --> 00:00:54.380
So let's think about other options.

00:00:54.380 --> 00:00:55.666
I actually would have
liked this a lot more

00:00:55.666 --> 00:00:59.502
if it literally just said was imminent,

00:00:59.502 --> 00:01:01.176
or if it just said,

00:01:01.176 --> 00:01:03.310
an energy crisis could
happen in the future,

00:01:03.310 --> 00:01:04.876
if it just said that one.

00:01:04.876 --> 00:01:07.622
So, I don't like having
both of them there.

00:01:07.622 --> 00:01:09.449
So let's think about the other options.

00:01:09.449 --> 00:01:12.549
Americans should have
realized that an energy crisis

00:01:12.549 --> 00:01:17.549
could happen imminently in the future.

00:01:17.649 --> 00:01:19.276
So this feels a little bit clumsy.

00:01:19.276 --> 00:01:22.659
At least it doesn't have kind
of the weird contradiction

00:01:22.659 --> 00:01:26.125
of something both being
imminent and maybe happening.

00:01:26.125 --> 00:01:29.622
So, I don't know, but it still
feels a little bit clumsy.

00:01:29.622 --> 00:01:32.325
Could happen imminently in the future.

00:01:32.325 --> 00:01:35.124
And actually this is not contradictory,

00:01:35.124 --> 00:01:37.349
but this one's a little bit redundant.

00:01:37.349 --> 00:01:39.969
Imminently means it's about
to happen in the future,

00:01:39.969 --> 00:01:41.322
and then they say, in the future.

00:01:41.322 --> 00:01:42.742
Well you don't have to write in the future

00:01:42.742 --> 00:01:43.969
if you wrote imminently.

00:01:43.969 --> 00:01:45.222
Something's about to happen imminently,

00:01:45.222 --> 00:01:47.576
it's not going to happen in
the present or in the past.

00:01:47.576 --> 00:01:49.089
It's about to happen in the future.

00:01:49.089 --> 00:01:52.575
So you wouldn't put in the
future right over there.

00:01:52.575 --> 00:01:55.890
So I would actually rule
this one out as well.

00:01:55.890 --> 00:01:59.113
Americans should have
realized that an energy crisis

00:01:59.113 --> 00:02:02.129
will be imminent and happening soon.

00:02:02.129 --> 00:02:04.849
Well, this is very redundant, just like B.

00:02:04.849 --> 00:02:06.813
If something is imminent,

00:02:06.813 --> 00:02:09.726
that's the same thing
as it's happening soon.

00:02:09.726 --> 00:02:12.389
You don't have to say, and happening soon.

00:02:12.389 --> 00:02:15.449
So let's rule that one out.

00:02:15.449 --> 00:02:17.509
Americans should have
realized that an energy crisis

00:02:17.509 --> 00:02:20.509
is an imminent thing.

00:02:20.509 --> 00:02:25.509
And here it's actually
more of the verb tense

00:02:26.784 --> 00:02:28.255
that I'm a little concerned about.

00:02:28.255 --> 00:02:29.461
Americans should have.

00:02:29.461 --> 00:02:31.064
We're talking about something in the past.

00:02:31.064 --> 00:02:32.792
Americans should have realized.

00:02:32.792 --> 00:02:34.352
This was the first time the United States

00:02:34.352 --> 00:02:35.747
imported more oil than it exported.

00:02:35.747 --> 00:02:37.392
This happened in the past.

00:02:37.392 --> 00:02:40.104
Americans should have
realized that an energy crisis

00:02:40.104 --> 00:02:42.053
was an imminent thing.

00:02:42.053 --> 00:02:44.324
So this, I would have put a was in there,

00:02:44.324 --> 00:02:44.936
and maybe I would have felt

00:02:44.936 --> 00:02:46.447
a little bit more comfortable with it.

00:02:46.447 --> 00:02:48.815
So I'll rule that out.

00:02:48.815 --> 00:02:49.446
So we're left with one.

00:02:49.446 --> 00:02:51.215
Let's hope this one works.

00:02:51.215 --> 00:02:54.275
Americans should have
realized that an energy crisis

00:02:54.275 --> 00:02:57.051
might be imminent.

00:02:57.051 --> 00:02:58.561
That one feels right.

00:02:58.561 --> 00:02:59.842
That one feels right.

00:02:59.842 --> 00:03:01.276
It might be imminent.

00:03:01.276 --> 00:03:04.275
We aren't sure whether
something is imminent.

00:03:04.275 --> 00:03:06.956
You can't say that it will be
imminent and you're not sure,

00:03:06.956 --> 00:03:09.115
but you could be unsure of

00:03:09.115 --> 00:03:12.243
is the thing going to happen soon.

00:03:12.243 --> 00:03:14.127
So this one actually feels really good.

00:03:14.127 --> 00:03:15.773
Let me read the whole thing.

00:03:15.773 --> 00:03:18.035
When for the first time the United States

00:03:18.035 --> 00:03:20.915
imported more oil than it exported,

00:03:20.915 --> 00:03:25.035
Americans should have
realized that an energy crisis

00:03:25.035 --> 00:03:26.837
might be imminent.

00:03:26.837 --> 00:03:28.085
Yeah, nice and clean.

00:03:28.085 --> 00:03:28.995
Nice and simple.

00:03:28.995 --> 00:03:30.422
Not redundant.

00:03:30.422 --> 00:03:31.776
Feels good.


15 Storing bread

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.512 --> 00:00:03.124
- Storing bread in the
refrigerator delays drying

00:00:03.124 --> 00:00:04.447
and the growth of mold,

00:00:04.447 --> 00:00:08.708
but increase the rate at
which the bread loses flavor.

00:00:08.708 --> 00:00:10.647
So that already felt a little bit strange,

00:00:10.647 --> 00:00:11.831
especially right around here.

00:00:11.831 --> 00:00:14.050
But let's think about
why it feels strange.

00:00:14.050 --> 00:00:15.211
So what's the subject?

00:00:15.211 --> 00:00:17.987
The subject is storing
bread in the refrigerator.

00:00:18.003 --> 00:00:18.788
It is singular.

00:00:18.788 --> 00:00:19.868
It is a singular action.

00:00:19.868 --> 00:00:22.612
The singular action of storing
bread in the refrigerator.

00:00:22.612 --> 00:00:24.829
This right over here is singular.

00:00:24.829 --> 00:00:26.629
We have a singular subject.

00:00:26.629 --> 00:00:28.708
And then we see it right
over here, where later on,

00:00:28.708 --> 00:00:30.670
and once again, the word
delays isn't up for debate.

00:00:30.670 --> 00:00:33.136
They didn't underline this
as a potential error place.

00:00:34.874 --> 00:00:39.386
This is a singular
version of the verb delay.

00:00:39.386 --> 00:00:41.674
So this right over here is also singular.

00:00:41.674 --> 00:00:44.333
So this verb right over here,

00:00:44.333 --> 00:00:47.926
this singular verb agrees
with the singular subject.

00:00:49.287 --> 00:00:51.050
Let me do that same magenta color.

00:00:51.050 --> 00:00:53.307
If you have a singular subject,

00:00:54.017 --> 00:00:55.645
then you should have a singular verb.

00:00:55.645 --> 00:00:56.249
So this makes sense.

00:00:56.249 --> 00:00:57.340
Storing bread in the refrigerator

00:00:57.340 --> 00:01:00.232
delays drying and the growth of mold.

00:01:00.232 --> 00:01:03.015
But then over here we say "but increase."

00:01:03.015 --> 00:01:04.536
Increase?

00:01:04.536 --> 00:01:07.067
This is the plural form of the verb,

00:01:07.067 --> 00:01:11.110
so this really should be
"increases" to make it singular.

00:01:11.110 --> 00:01:13.263
To give it the singular form of the word.

00:01:13.263 --> 00:01:16.393
For this verb to agree
with the singular subject,

00:01:16.393 --> 00:01:19.153
it needs to be "but increases" the rate

00:01:19.153 --> 00:01:20.944
at which the bread loses flavor.

00:01:20.944 --> 00:01:23.762
So the error is definitely
where we suspected.

00:01:24.988 --> 00:01:27.082
It's in this part of the sentence.


Treating units algebraically and dimensional analysis

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.536 --> 00:00:02.386
Voiceover:We've seen
multiple times in our life

00:00:02.386 --> 00:00:08.402
that distance can be
viewed as rate times time.

00:00:08.770 --> 00:00:10.048
What I want to do in this video

00:00:10.048 --> 00:00:12.367
is use this fairly simple
formula right over here,

00:00:12.367 --> 00:00:14.033
this fairly simple equation,

00:00:14.033 --> 00:00:17.700
to understand that units
can really be viewed

00:00:17.700 --> 00:00:19.633
as algebraic objects,

00:00:19.633 --> 00:00:21.767
that you can treat them like variables

00:00:21.767 --> 00:00:24.236
as we work through a
formula or an equation,

00:00:24.236 --> 00:00:25.766
which could be really, really helpful

00:00:25.766 --> 00:00:29.033
to make sure that we're
getting the results

00:00:29.033 --> 00:00:32.933
in units that actually make sense.

00:00:33.026 --> 00:00:36.566
For example, if someone
were to give you a rate,

00:00:36.566 --> 00:00:40.968
if they were to say a rate of, let's say,

00:00:40.968 --> 00:00:45.034
5 meters per second,

00:00:45.034 --> 00:00:47.433
and they were to give you a time,

00:00:47.433 --> 00:00:49.833
a time of 10 seconds,

00:00:49.833 --> 00:00:52.104
then we can pretty, in a
pretty straightforward way,

00:00:52.104 --> 00:00:53.002
apply this formula.

00:00:53.002 --> 00:00:56.500
We say, well, distance
is equal to our rate,

00:00:56.500 --> 00:01:01.693
5 meters per second times our time,

00:01:01.693 --> 00:01:04.167
times our time, which is 10 seconds.

00:01:04.167 --> 00:01:07.100
What's neat here is we
can treat the units,

00:01:07.100 --> 00:01:09.302
as I've just said, like
algebraic constructs,

00:01:09.302 --> 00:01:10.967
kind of like variables,

00:01:10.967 --> 00:01:13.101
so this would be equal to,

00:01:13.101 --> 00:01:14.561
well, multiplication, it doesn't matter

00:01:14.561 --> 00:01:15.926
what order we multiply in,

00:01:15.926 --> 00:01:17.653
so we can change the order.

00:01:17.653 --> 00:01:21.258
This is the same thing as 5 times 10,

00:01:21.258 --> 00:01:25.300
5 times 10 times meters per second,

00:01:25.300 --> 00:01:29.001
times meters per second times seconds,

00:01:29.166 --> 00:01:30.600
times seconds.

00:01:30.767 --> 00:01:32.541
If we were to treat our units

00:01:32.541 --> 00:01:34.038
as these algebraic objects,

00:01:34.038 --> 00:01:34.956
we could say, hey, look,

00:01:34.956 --> 00:01:36.966
we have seconds divided by seconds,

00:01:36.966 --> 00:01:38.567
or you're going to have
seconds in the denominator

00:01:38.567 --> 00:01:40.700
multiplied by seconds in the numerator.

00:01:40.700 --> 00:01:42.500
Those are going to cancel out,

00:01:42.500 --> 00:01:45.167
and 5 times 10, of course, is,

00:01:45.167 --> 00:01:47.702
5 times 10, of course, is 50.

00:01:47.702 --> 00:01:50.700
We would be left with 50,

00:01:50.700 --> 00:01:53.473
and the units that we're
left with are the meters,

00:01:53.473 --> 00:01:54.633
50 meters.

00:01:54.633 --> 00:01:55.701
That's pretty neat.

00:01:55.701 --> 00:01:56.669
The units worked out.

00:01:56.669 --> 00:01:59.700
When we treated the units
out like algebraic objects,

00:01:59.700 --> 00:02:03.088
they worked out so that
our end units for distance

00:02:03.088 --> 00:02:06.233
were in meters, which
is a unit of distance.

00:02:06.233 --> 00:02:08.233
Now you're saying, "OK,
that's cute and everything,

00:02:08.233 --> 00:02:10.499
"but this seems like a little
bit of too much overhead

00:02:10.499 --> 00:02:12.366
"to worry about when I'm just doing

00:02:12.366 --> 00:02:14.233
"a simple formula like this."

00:02:14.233 --> 00:02:15.433
But what I want to show you is that

00:02:15.433 --> 00:02:17.634
even with a simple formula

00:02:17.634 --> 00:02:20.069
like distance is equal to rate times time,

00:02:20.239 --> 00:02:22.433
what I just did could
actually be quite useful,

00:02:22.433 --> 00:02:23.767
and this thing that I'm
doing is actually called

00:02:23.767 --> 00:02:25.366
dimensional analysis.

00:02:25.366 --> 00:02:26.900
It's useful for something as simple

00:02:26.900 --> 00:02:28.767
as distance equals rate times time,

00:02:28.767 --> 00:02:31.766
but as you go into physics
and chemistry and engineering,

00:02:31.766 --> 00:02:33.701
you'll see much, much, much more,

00:02:33.701 --> 00:02:35.838
I would say, hairy formulas.

00:02:35.838 --> 00:02:37.633
When you do the dimensional analysis,

00:02:37.633 --> 00:02:40.525
it makes sure that the
math is working out right.

00:02:40.525 --> 00:02:42.766
It makes sure that you're
getting the right units.

00:02:42.766 --> 00:02:43.366
But even with this,

00:02:43.366 --> 00:02:45.966
let's try a slightly
more complicated example.

00:02:45.966 --> 00:02:48.837
Let's say that our rate is,

00:02:48.837 --> 00:02:52.767
let's say, let's keep our
rate at 5 meters per second,

00:02:52.767 --> 00:02:55.501
but let's say that
someone gave us the time.

00:02:55.501 --> 00:02:57.856
Instead of giving it in
seconds, they give it in hours,

00:02:57.856 --> 00:03:01.633
so they say the time is equal to 1 hour.

00:03:01.633 --> 00:03:04.033
Now let's try to apply this formula.

00:03:04.033 --> 00:03:08.034
We're going to get distance is
equal to 5 meters per second,

00:03:08.034 --> 00:03:13.366
5 meters per second times
time, which is 1 hour,

00:03:13.366 --> 00:03:15.366
times 1 hour.

00:03:15.658 --> 00:03:17.233
What's that going to give us?

00:03:17.233 --> 00:03:19.100
The 5 times the 1,

00:03:19.100 --> 00:03:21.033
so we multiply the 5 times the 1,

00:03:21.033 --> 00:03:22.700
that's just going to give us 5.

00:03:22.700 --> 00:03:23.730
But then remember,

00:03:23.730 --> 00:03:25.835
we have to treat the units algebraically.

00:03:25.835 --> 00:03:27.700
We're going to do our
dimensional analysis,

00:03:27.700 --> 00:03:29.166
so it's 5,

00:03:29.166 --> 00:03:34.309
so we have meters per second times hours,

00:03:34.309 --> 00:03:35.532
times hours,

00:03:35.532 --> 00:03:38.167
or you could say 5 meter hours per second.

00:03:38.474 --> 00:03:40.167
Well, this doesn't look like a ...

00:03:40.167 --> 00:03:42.115
This isn't a set of units that we know

00:03:42.115 --> 00:03:43.500
that makes sense to us.

00:03:43.500 --> 00:03:45.750
This doesn't feel like our
traditional units of distance,

00:03:45.750 --> 00:03:48.036
so we want to cancel this out in some way.

00:03:48.036 --> 00:03:49.100
It might jump out of you,

00:03:49.100 --> 00:03:50.700
well, if we can get rid of this hours,

00:03:50.700 --> 00:03:53.233
if we can express it in terms of seconds,

00:03:53.233 --> 00:03:54.433
then that would cancel here,

00:03:54.433 --> 00:03:56.034
and we'd be left with just the meters,

00:03:56.034 --> 00:03:58.845
which is a unit of distance
that we're familiar with.

00:03:58.845 --> 00:04:00.234
So how do we do that?

00:04:00.234 --> 00:04:02.500
We'd want to multiply this thing

00:04:02.500 --> 00:04:05.900
by something that has
hours in the denominator

00:04:05.900 --> 00:04:08.033
and seconds in the numerator,

00:04:08.033 --> 00:04:10.300
times essentially seconds per hour.

00:04:10.300 --> 00:04:13.035
How many seconds are there per hour?

00:04:13.035 --> 00:04:15.366
Well, there are 3,600 ...

00:04:15.366 --> 00:04:16.368
Let me do this in a ...

00:04:16.368 --> 00:04:17.233
I'll do it in this color.

00:04:17.233 --> 00:04:20.233
There are 3,600 seconds per hour,

00:04:20.233 --> 00:04:22.135
or you could even say that

00:04:22.135 --> 00:04:27.233
there are 3,600 seconds for every 1 hour.

00:04:28.324 --> 00:04:29.709
Now when you multiply,

00:04:29.709 --> 00:04:31.966
these hours will cancel with these hours,

00:04:31.966 --> 00:04:34.366
these seconds will cancel
with those seconds,

00:04:34.366 --> 00:04:36.506
and we are left with,

00:04:36.506 --> 00:04:39.567
we are left with 5 times 3,600.

00:04:39.567 --> 00:04:40.233
What is that?

00:04:40.233 --> 00:04:43.301
That's 5 times 3,000 would be 15,000,

00:04:43.301 --> 00:04:46.037
5 times 600 is another 3,000,

00:04:46.037 --> 00:04:50.100
so that is equal to 18,000.

00:04:50.100 --> 00:04:51.700
The only units that we're left with,

00:04:51.700 --> 00:04:53.422
we just have the meters there.

00:04:53.422 --> 00:04:54.198
18-

00:04:54.198 --> 00:04:56.429
Oh, it's 18,000,

00:04:56.433 --> 00:04:59.300
18,000,

00:04:59.300 --> 00:05:02.473
18,000 meters.

00:05:03.673 --> 00:05:04.679
We're done.

00:05:04.679 --> 00:05:06.233
We've now expressed our distance

00:05:06.233 --> 00:05:08.366
in terms of units that we recognize.

00:05:08.366 --> 00:05:11.033
If you go 5 meters per second for 1 hour,

00:05:11.033 --> 00:05:13.900
you will go 18,000 meters.

00:05:13.900 --> 00:05:15.033
But let's just use our little

00:05:15.033 --> 00:05:17.039
dimensional analysis
muscles a little bit more.

00:05:17.039 --> 00:05:18.833
What if we didn't want
the answer in meters

00:05:18.833 --> 00:05:20.500
but we wanted the answer in kilometers?

00:05:20.500 --> 00:05:21.833
What could we do?

00:05:21.833 --> 00:05:24.433
Well, we could take that 18,000 meters,

00:05:24.433 --> 00:05:27.100
18,000 meters,

00:05:27.100 --> 00:05:29.343
and if we could multiply it by something

00:05:29.343 --> 00:05:32.100
that has meters in the denominator,

00:05:32.100 --> 00:05:33.501
meters in the denominator

00:05:33.501 --> 00:05:35.767
and kilometers in the numerator,

00:05:35.767 --> 00:05:37.339
then these meters would cancel out,

00:05:37.339 --> 00:05:39.700
and we'd be left with the kilometers.

00:05:39.700 --> 00:05:40.705
So what can we multiply it

00:05:40.705 --> 00:05:42.700
so we're not really changing the value?

00:05:42.700 --> 00:05:45.785
We want to multiply it by essentially 1,

00:05:45.785 --> 00:05:47.633
so we want to write equivalent things

00:05:47.633 --> 00:05:49.500
in the numerator and the denominator.

00:05:49.500 --> 00:05:52.766
So 1 kilometer is equivalent to,

00:05:52.766 --> 00:05:55.766
equivalent to 1,000 meters.

00:05:55.766 --> 00:05:56.633
One way to think about it,

00:05:56.633 --> 00:05:58.433
we're just multiplying this thing by 1,

00:05:58.433 --> 00:06:01.633
1 kilometer over 1,000 meters.

00:06:01.633 --> 00:06:03.236
Well, 1 kilometer is 1,000 meters,

00:06:03.236 --> 00:06:05.700
so this thing is equivalent to 1.

00:06:05.700 --> 00:06:07.702
But what's neat is when you multiply,

00:06:07.702 --> 00:06:10.766
we have meters canceling with meters,

00:06:10.766 --> 00:06:14.103
and so you're left with
18,000 divided by 1,000

00:06:14.103 --> 00:06:16.311
is equal to 18.

00:06:16.311 --> 00:06:18.033
And then the only units we're left with

00:06:18.033 --> 00:06:20.833
is the kilometers,

00:06:20.833 --> 00:06:22.700
and we are done.

00:06:22.700 --> 00:06:24.233
We have re-expressed our distance

00:06:24.233 --> 00:06:25.500
instead of in meters

00:06:25.500 --> 00:06:27.835
in terms of kilometers.


9 Constitutional Convention

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.500 --> 00:00:03.530
- [Voiceover] At the
Constitutional Convention of 1787,

00:00:03.530 --> 00:00:05.539
the proposal to replace the existing

00:00:05.539 --> 00:00:09.208
Articles of Confederation
with a federal constitution

00:00:09.254 --> 00:00:12.618
were met with fierce opposition.

00:00:13.073 --> 00:00:15.096
So, what's off here is what was met

00:00:15.096 --> 00:00:16.973
with fierce opposition?

00:00:16.973 --> 00:00:19.620
Well, the proposal,
the proposal to replace

00:00:19.620 --> 00:00:21.153
the existing Articles of Confederation

00:00:21.153 --> 00:00:22.557
with a federal constitution.

00:00:22.557 --> 00:00:24.310
The proposal is what is being met

00:00:24.310 --> 00:00:26.829
with fierce opposition.

00:00:26.829 --> 00:00:29.330
Now the proposal, this is clearly,

00:00:29.330 --> 00:00:32.174
we're talking about one
proposal, the proposal.

00:00:32.174 --> 00:00:35.745
This is right over here
is singular, singular.

00:00:35.745 --> 00:00:37.962
While this right over,
they're saying were met.

00:00:37.962 --> 00:00:40.133
Well, one thing, you wouldn't use were,

00:00:40.133 --> 00:00:42.908
if you're talking about a singular thing

00:00:42.908 --> 00:00:47.134
that's it's happening to,
that it's being met with.

00:00:47.134 --> 00:00:48.898
So this right over here,

00:00:48.898 --> 00:00:52.779
this verb is for plural.

00:00:52.779 --> 00:00:54.765
This is for if we had many proposals.

00:00:54.765 --> 00:00:56.990
If this said, the proposals
to replace the existing

00:00:56.990 --> 00:01:00.658
Articles of Confederation were
met with fierce opposition,

00:01:00.658 --> 00:01:01.900
then that would make sense.

00:01:01.900 --> 00:01:03.862
But this needs to be singular.

00:01:03.862 --> 00:01:05.047
So let's look at the options.

00:01:05.047 --> 00:01:06.640
So we definitely don't like it as is,

00:01:06.640 --> 00:01:08.041
so let's rule that out.

00:01:08.041 --> 00:01:10.212
And so let's see if we can see one

00:01:10.212 --> 00:01:13.082
that is where the verb

00:01:13.082 --> 00:01:17.723
matches the singular noun.

00:01:17.723 --> 00:01:21.864
So let's see, at the
Constitutional Convention of 1787,

00:01:21.864 --> 00:01:23.954
the proposal, and you know, we could even

00:01:23.954 --> 00:01:25.869
for the sake of kind
of thinking about this,

00:01:25.869 --> 00:01:28.392
we can ignore to replace the existing

00:01:28.392 --> 00:01:30.733
Articles of Confederation
with a federal constitution

00:01:30.733 --> 00:01:35.725
So the proposal having been
met with fierce opposition.

00:01:35.725 --> 00:01:38.517
Well, once again, now
it's not even giving us

00:01:38.517 --> 00:01:40.543
an action for the proposal.

00:01:40.543 --> 00:01:42.215
It's leaving us hanging.

00:01:42.215 --> 00:01:43.875
It's a sentence fragment,
there's no predicate.

00:01:43.875 --> 00:01:46.475
So we can rule this one out.

00:01:46.475 --> 00:01:49.807
The proposal it met
with fierce opposition.

00:01:49.807 --> 00:01:54.168
Well now it's giving us
a noun and then a pronoun

00:01:54.168 --> 00:01:55.650
to refer to the same thing.

00:01:55.650 --> 00:01:57.829
So that doesn't make any sense.

00:01:57.829 --> 00:02:02.080
The proposal met with fierce opposition.

00:02:02.080 --> 00:02:04.016
That looks pretty good.

00:02:04.016 --> 00:02:06.141
Now let's just read it
out, the whole thing.

00:02:06.141 --> 00:02:09.575
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787,

00:02:09.575 --> 00:02:12.456
the proposal to replace the existing

00:02:12.456 --> 00:02:16.252
Articles of Confederation
with a federal constitution

00:02:16.252 --> 00:02:19.503
met with fierce opposition.

00:02:19.503 --> 00:02:22.768
So that seems exactly right.

00:02:22.814 --> 00:02:26.619
A single proposal can be
met with fierce opposition.

00:02:26.619 --> 00:02:28.674
You wouldn't say were met with.

00:02:28.674 --> 00:02:30.508
So this seems right.

00:02:30.508 --> 00:02:31.994
Now let's just look at this last one.

00:02:31.994 --> 00:02:36.011
The proposal met their fierce opposition.

00:02:36.011 --> 00:02:37.973
So who's their referring to.

00:02:37.973 --> 00:02:42.106
They're not talking
about, this is ambiguous.

00:02:42.106 --> 00:02:44.497
Who is this protagonist?

00:02:44.497 --> 00:02:47.246
This possessive pronoun their.

00:02:48.460 --> 00:02:51.326
I don't even see who it's referring to.

00:02:51.326 --> 00:02:53.052
So let's rule that one out.

00:02:53.052 --> 00:02:55.473
So we definitely like D.


16 Legislators

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.084 --> 00:00:03.556
"According to last week's survey, most

00:00:03.556 --> 00:00:07.183
voters were disappointed by legislators'

00:00:07.183 --> 00:00:11.668
inability working together on key issues,

00:00:11.668 --> 00:00:13.408
[or] no error. So, the part that feels

00:00:13.408 --> 00:00:17.906
fishy to me is, right around here,

00:00:17.906 --> 00:00:20.328
because we are talking about "legislators'

00:00:20.328 --> 00:00:25.145
inability [to] work together". Let's read

00:00:25.145 --> 00:00:26.580
the whole thing. "According to last week's

00:00:26.580 --> 00:00:29.492
survey, most voters were disappointed by

00:00:29.492 --> 00:00:34.992
legislators' inability [to] work together

00:00:34.992 --> 00:00:37.276
on key issues". Right, what are they

00:00:37.276 --> 00:00:39.598
complaining about? The "inability [to]

00:00:39.598 --> 00:00:41.359
work together". They are not complaining

00:00:41.359 --> 00:00:43.465
about, "inability working together". That

00:00:43.465 --> 00:00:46.269
doesn't even actually make any grammatical

00:00:46.269 --> 00:00:47.977
sense. I don't even know what, "inability

00:00:47.977 --> 00:00:50.148
working together" even means. They're

00:00:50.148 --> 00:00:52.442
trying to say, "inability to work together

00:00:52.442 --> 00:00:55.979
on key issues". So, it is definitely part C,

00:00:55.979 --> 00:00:59.234
right over here, where we have the error.


14 Apparel manufacturers

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.820 --> 00:00:03.057
- [Voiceover] Over the past two years,

00:00:03.057 --> 00:00:07.140
apparel manufacturers
have worked to meeting

00:00:07.490 --> 00:00:09.522
the revised federal standards

00:00:09.522 --> 00:00:12.020
for the design of uniforms.

00:00:12.020 --> 00:00:13.585
Then we have the option of no error.

00:00:13.585 --> 00:00:14.420
So, let me...

00:00:14.420 --> 00:00:15.785
That felt a little weird
the first time I read it.

00:00:15.785 --> 00:00:18.322
Let me see if I can
pinpoint what felt off.

00:00:18.322 --> 00:00:20.252
Over the past two years,

00:00:20.252 --> 00:00:23.988
apparel manufacturers have worked

00:00:23.988 --> 00:00:26.420
to meeting.

00:00:26.420 --> 00:00:27.333
What we're talking...

00:00:27.333 --> 00:00:28.333
Who's doing the action?

00:00:28.333 --> 00:00:30.723
We're talking about apparel manufacturers

00:00:30.723 --> 00:00:34.722
So apparel manufacturers
would work to meet.

00:00:34.722 --> 00:00:37.053
Would work to meet

00:00:37.053 --> 00:00:39.150
the revised federal standards

00:00:39.150 --> 00:00:41.550
for the design of uniforms.

00:00:41.550 --> 00:00:43.680
So, the error here is C.

00:00:43.680 --> 00:00:45.795
Apparel manufacturers, this is plural.

00:00:45.795 --> 00:00:47.980
What do they do? They would meet.

00:00:47.980 --> 00:00:50.793
They would work to meeting

00:00:50.793 --> 00:00:53.620
the revised federal standards.

00:00:53.620 --> 00:00:57.290
So, yes, definitely
error right here, at C.


6 Sea Islands

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.648 --> 00:00:02.970
- [Voiceover] The article
featured the Sea Islands

00:00:02.970 --> 00:00:06.488
because many were known there to live

00:00:06.488 --> 00:00:10.191
much as their ancestors of a century

00:00:10.191 --> 00:00:12.257
ago had lived.

00:00:12.257 --> 00:00:15.288
So this one immediately seems strange

00:00:15.288 --> 00:00:16.866
because they're saying
the article featured

00:00:16.866 --> 00:00:19.571
the Sea Islands because many were known,

00:00:19.571 --> 00:00:21.754
so when they're saying
featured the Sea Islands

00:00:21.754 --> 00:00:23.993
because many were known, I'm thinking

00:00:23.993 --> 00:00:26.483
that when they're saying many were known,

00:00:26.483 --> 00:00:28.619
I think they're talking
about the Sea Islands

00:00:28.619 --> 00:00:30.674
because that's what the
article was featured on.

00:00:30.674 --> 00:00:33.854
Because many were known there to live

00:00:33.854 --> 00:00:34.528
much as their ances--

00:00:34.528 --> 00:00:37.523
Well islands don't live
much as their ancestors.

00:00:37.523 --> 00:00:39.659
So the way this reads it
sounds like, you know,

00:00:39.659 --> 00:00:41.946
the article was talking about Sea Islands

00:00:41.946 --> 00:00:44.778
because many of the Sea Islands were known

00:00:44.778 --> 00:00:47.344
to live like the Sea Islands' ancestors.

00:00:49.020 --> 00:00:50.704
Well islands don't have ancestors,

00:00:50.704 --> 00:00:51.819
at least in the way that we traditionally

00:00:51.819 --> 00:00:54.325
think about it, so this
is just badly phrased.

00:00:54.325 --> 00:00:55.777
So I'm going to rule it out as it is.

00:00:55.777 --> 00:00:57.170
So I'm going to rule out choice A,

00:00:57.170 --> 00:00:59.434
which is the kind of as it is.

00:00:59.434 --> 00:01:00.711
So they're really talking about where

00:01:00.711 --> 00:01:02.755
the residents were known to live

00:01:02.755 --> 00:01:03.938
as their ancestors.

00:01:03.938 --> 00:01:06.329
So we have to be a little
bit more specific here.

00:01:06.329 --> 00:01:07.907
The article featured the Sea Islands

00:01:07.907 --> 00:01:10.689
because they were known for living,

00:01:10.689 --> 00:01:13.914
well once again, they,
it's not the Sea Islands.

00:01:13.914 --> 00:01:15.923
We're really talking about the residents,

00:01:15.923 --> 00:01:17.617
the people of the Sea Islands.

00:01:17.617 --> 00:01:20.683
So I'm going to rule this one out as well.

00:01:20.683 --> 00:01:22.099
The article featured the Sea Islands

00:01:22.099 --> 00:01:25.175
because many of the people there

00:01:25.175 --> 00:01:28.182
were known to live much as their ancestors

00:01:28.182 --> 00:01:30.341
of a century ago had lived.

00:01:30.341 --> 00:01:31.701
Well at least this one's conveying

00:01:31.701 --> 00:01:33.638
the right impression.

00:01:34.161 --> 00:01:35.211
It's making it clear we're not talking

00:01:35.211 --> 00:01:37.092
about the Sea Islands' ancestors,

00:01:37.092 --> 00:01:39.077
or the Sea Islands living
like their ancestors,

00:01:39.077 --> 00:01:41.194
we're talking about the
people who are known

00:01:41.194 --> 00:01:44.050
to live there live like their ancestors.

00:01:44.050 --> 00:01:46.975
So this one is feeling pretty good.

00:01:46.975 --> 00:01:48.484
Let's try the other choices.

00:01:48.484 --> 00:01:50.388
The article featured the Sea Islands

00:01:50.388 --> 00:01:53.047
because of the many people,

00:01:53.047 --> 00:01:58.047
they were there living
much as their ancestors

00:02:00.674 --> 00:02:02.288
of a century ago had lived.

00:02:02.288 --> 00:02:04.134
So once again, you have this comma here,

00:02:04.134 --> 00:02:05.387
this is convoluted, and it's also

00:02:05.387 --> 00:02:07.163
not completely clear.

00:02:07.163 --> 00:02:09.207
The article featured the Sea Islands

00:02:09.207 --> 00:02:12.109
because of the many people,

00:02:12.109 --> 00:02:13.247
they were living.

00:02:13.247 --> 00:02:16.532
This makes it sound like the Sea Islands

00:02:16.532 --> 00:02:19.411
are somehow a subset of the many people,

00:02:19.411 --> 00:02:20.943
and still that they're talking about

00:02:20.943 --> 00:02:24.762
the Sea Islands themselves were living

00:02:24.762 --> 00:02:25.609
like their ancestors.

00:02:25.609 --> 00:02:27.355
Once again, it doesn't make sense,

00:02:27.355 --> 00:02:28.551
or at least it's confusing.

00:02:28.551 --> 00:02:30.351
So I'm going to rule that one out.

00:02:30.351 --> 00:02:32.336
The article featured the Sea Islands

00:02:32.336 --> 00:02:36.898
because of knowing that
many people lived there

00:02:36.898 --> 00:02:41.898
much as their ancestors of
a century ago had lived.

00:02:43.934 --> 00:02:46.790
Well this one has all sorts of problems.

00:02:46.790 --> 00:02:50.272
If you said because of
knowing that many people

00:02:50.272 --> 00:02:53.255
lived there much as their ancestors

00:02:53.255 --> 00:02:55.171
of a century ago had lived,

00:02:55.171 --> 00:02:56.634
it leaves you hanging.

00:02:56.634 --> 00:02:58.851
Well what was because of knowing

00:02:58.851 --> 00:03:00.012
that many people had lived there?

00:03:00.012 --> 00:03:01.336
So it leaves you hanging.

00:03:01.336 --> 00:03:03.495
It's also just convoluted.

00:03:03.495 --> 00:03:08.057
Because of knowing that many people

00:03:08.057 --> 00:03:11.099
had lived there much as their ancestors?

00:03:12.344 --> 00:03:13.559
Because we know this fact,

00:03:13.559 --> 00:03:14.500
something is going to be there

00:03:14.500 --> 00:03:15.347
and they didn't even tell us

00:03:15.347 --> 00:03:17.013
what is because of knowing?

00:03:17.013 --> 00:03:20.728
So this one is also really,
really, really strange.

00:03:20.728 --> 00:03:23.292
So definitely like C.

00:03:23.292 --> 00:03:25.511
The article featured the Sea Islands

00:03:25.511 --> 00:03:28.575
because many of the people there

00:03:28.575 --> 00:03:31.987
were known to live much as their ancestors

00:03:31.987 --> 00:03:34.124
of a century ago had lived.

00:03:34.124 --> 00:03:36.235
Yeah, that's nice and understandable.


2 Course reviews

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.649 --> 00:00:02.523
- [Voiceover] "To help
freshmen and sophomores

00:00:02.523 --> 00:00:04.132
"in selecting their courses,

00:00:04.132 --> 00:00:06.651
"candid reviews of courses and instructors

00:00:06.651 --> 00:00:10.142
"compiled by juniors and seniors."

00:00:10.142 --> 00:00:12.537
So this already feels very strange.

00:00:12.537 --> 00:00:13.872
They're giving us a subject,

00:00:13.872 --> 00:00:17.250
which is "candid reviews
of courses and instructors

00:00:17.250 --> 00:00:19.247
"compiled by juniors and seniors."

00:00:19.247 --> 00:00:20.433
So what they've underlined here

00:00:20.433 --> 00:00:21.600
which we're gonna think about

00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:23.148
if there's a better way of phrasing it,

00:00:23.148 --> 00:00:25.423
that already feels like the
subject of our sentence.

00:00:25.423 --> 00:00:28.708
And because they're saying, "To
help freshmen and sophomores

00:00:28.708 --> 00:00:30.125
"in selecting their courses,"

00:00:30.125 --> 00:00:31.808
essentially giving us
this prepositional phrase,

00:00:31.808 --> 00:00:34.931
it's implying that the candid reviews

00:00:34.931 --> 00:00:36.069
of courses and instructors

00:00:36.069 --> 00:00:38.692
compiled by juniors and
seniors did something

00:00:38.692 --> 00:00:42.372
to help freshmen and sophomores
in selecting their courses.

00:00:42.372 --> 00:00:44.675
They're not telling us
what the candid reviews,

00:00:44.675 --> 00:00:46.528
they're not telling us
what the stuff in orange

00:00:46.528 --> 00:00:47.558
right over here,

00:00:47.558 --> 00:00:48.896
what did they do?

00:00:48.896 --> 00:00:49.717
Another way to think about it,

00:00:49.717 --> 00:00:50.901
they gave us the subject.

00:00:50.901 --> 00:00:51.962
That's why over here in orange,

00:00:51.962 --> 00:00:53.528
"Candid reviews of courses and instructors

00:00:53.528 --> 00:00:55.444
"compiled by juniors and seniors."

00:00:55.444 --> 00:00:57.162
Well they're not telling us what they did

00:00:57.162 --> 00:00:59.960
to help freshmen and sophomores
in selecting their courses.

00:00:59.960 --> 00:01:03.059
We don't know what the action
here is of the sentence.

00:01:03.059 --> 00:01:04.406
We don't know what the
predicate of the sentence

00:01:04.406 --> 00:01:05.799
actually is.

00:01:05.799 --> 00:01:09.026
So I don't like it as it is,

00:01:09.026 --> 00:01:11.058
it's not really making any sense.

00:01:11.058 --> 00:01:13.183
So we can rule out the first choice

00:01:13.183 --> 00:01:15.806
which is always the sentence as is.

00:01:15.806 --> 00:01:18.798
Now let's look at the other choices.

00:01:18.798 --> 00:01:20.543
"Candid reviews of courses and instructors

00:01:20.543 --> 00:01:23.596
"being compiled by juniors and seniors."

00:01:23.596 --> 00:01:24.606
So once again,

00:01:24.606 --> 00:01:27.907
that just keeps this as a
whole subject right over here.

00:01:27.907 --> 00:01:31.583
It still doesn't tell
us what this thing did

00:01:31.583 --> 00:01:34.087
to help freshmen and sophomores
in selecting their courses.

00:01:34.087 --> 00:01:35.634
There's no predicate.

00:01:35.634 --> 00:01:37.325
So I'll rule that out.

00:01:37.325 --> 00:01:39.981
"And to compile candid reviews

00:01:39.981 --> 00:01:43.526
"of courses and instructors
by juniors and seniors."

00:01:43.526 --> 00:01:46.031
So this one really sounds disjoint.

00:01:46.031 --> 00:01:47.647
"To help freshmen and sophomores

00:01:47.647 --> 00:01:49.284
"in selecting their courses,

00:01:49.284 --> 00:01:52.278
"and to compile candid reviews

00:01:52.278 --> 00:01:54.557
"of courses and instructors
by juniors and seniors."

00:01:54.557 --> 00:01:58.229
So it's really this compound
prepositional phrase,

00:01:58.229 --> 00:01:59.874
and they're really not even giving us

00:01:59.874 --> 00:02:01.615
a subject or a predicate right over here.

00:02:01.615 --> 00:02:04.626
Who's doing what to do this

00:02:04.626 --> 00:02:05.574
and to do this?

00:02:05.574 --> 00:02:08.848
So this one is also I
would say fairly bizarre.

00:02:08.848 --> 00:02:11.549
"Juniors and seniors have
compiled candid reviews

00:02:11.549 --> 00:02:13.544
"of courses and instructors."

00:02:13.544 --> 00:02:15.118
So I like this one

00:02:15.118 --> 00:02:16.823
because this is actually
a complete sentence.

00:02:16.823 --> 00:02:17.740
This actually a complete sentence

00:02:17.740 --> 00:02:19.841
even if you did not have
the prepositional phrase

00:02:19.841 --> 00:02:20.944
in the beginning.

00:02:20.944 --> 00:02:22.558
What's your subject here?

00:02:22.558 --> 00:02:25.797
Well your subject is juniors and seniors.

00:02:25.797 --> 00:02:27.654
What did they do?

00:02:27.654 --> 00:02:30.475
Well they have compiled candid reviews

00:02:30.475 --> 00:02:33.401
of courses and instructors.

00:02:33.401 --> 00:02:35.641
So this by itself is a complete sentence

00:02:35.641 --> 00:02:38.335
and we could throw this
prepositional phrase on the front

00:02:38.335 --> 00:02:40.482
to say, "Well why did they do this?

00:02:40.482 --> 00:02:42.212
"To help freshmen and sophomores

00:02:42.212 --> 00:02:43.477
in selecting their courses."

00:02:43.477 --> 00:02:45.381
So we get, "To help
freshmen and sophomores

00:02:45.381 --> 00:02:46.937
"in selecting their courses,

00:02:46.937 --> 00:02:48.655
"juniors and seniors,"

00:02:48.655 --> 00:02:49.711
that's the subject,

00:02:49.711 --> 00:02:53.217
"have compiled candid reviews
of courses and instructors."

00:02:53.217 --> 00:02:55.851
That one feels very good.

00:02:55.957 --> 00:02:57.931
Now let's just look at this last one.

00:02:57.931 --> 00:03:00.821
"With juniors and seniors
compiling candid reviews

00:03:00.821 --> 00:03:02.319
"of courses and instructors."

00:03:02.319 --> 00:03:04.407
So once again it's just another phrase,

00:03:04.407 --> 00:03:08.404
not really giving us once again
a complete expression here.

00:03:08.437 --> 00:03:11.858
They're not giving us a
complete subject with an action.

00:03:11.858 --> 00:03:15.488
So I would rule this one out as well.


19 Selling stock

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:12.288 --> 00:00:13.479
So even when I read that

00:00:13.500 --> 00:00:14.810
what felt really awkward

00:00:14.889 --> 00:00:17.459
was saying wise or exceptional lucky

00:00:17.779 --> 00:00:19.799
this exceptional felt really strange

00:00:19.799 --> 00:00:23.635
because it's trying to modify the lucky

00:00:23.635 --> 00:00:26.119
it's trying to tell us what type of lucky we were

00:00:26.119 --> 00:00:27.809
we were not exceptional lucky

00:00:27.809 --> 00:00:28.467
this is an adverb

00:00:28.467 --> 00:00:29.427
an adverb

00:00:29.427 --> 00:00:30.295
it should say

00:00:30.295 --> 00:00:32.255
we were EXCEPTIONALLY

00:00:32.255 --> 00:00:34.945
EXCEPTIONALLY lucky

00:00:34.945 --> 00:00:37.515
so the error right over here is in D

00:00:37.515 --> 00:00:39.005
We don't need just an adjective

00:00:39.005 --> 00:00:40.485
We need an adverb

00:00:40.485 --> 00:00:43.485
We are modifying another adjective

00:00:43.485 --> 00:00:44.525
We are modifying lucky

00:00:44.460 --> 00:00:45.630
What type of lucky we were?

00:00:45.630 --> 00:00:48.000
We were EXCEPTIONALLY lucky

00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:52.000
So the error is in part D


1 Working at convenience store

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.539 --> 00:00:04.119
- Since last September
Patricia has been working

00:00:04.119 --> 00:00:07.259
at the convenience store down the road.

00:00:07.259 --> 00:00:09.203
So we have to think about
what they've underlined

00:00:09.203 --> 00:00:10.880
right over here, this has been working.

00:00:10.880 --> 00:00:11.806
Do we want to go with that?

00:00:11.806 --> 00:00:13.739
And the first choice is always exactly

00:00:13.739 --> 00:00:14.818
as they wrote it right over here.

00:00:14.818 --> 00:00:15.843
So they wrote, has been working.

00:00:15.843 --> 00:00:17.617
They wrote has been working over there.

00:00:17.617 --> 00:00:19.720
So do we want to go
with it as it's written,

00:00:19.720 --> 00:00:21.360
which is always going
to be the first choice,

00:00:21.360 --> 00:00:23.139
or do we think one of these other choices

00:00:23.139 --> 00:00:25.639
is going to make more sense?

00:00:25.639 --> 00:00:28.059
So since last September
Patricia has been working

00:00:28.059 --> 00:00:30.600
at the convenience store down the road.

00:00:30.600 --> 00:00:33.027
Well, has been working
actually looks pretty good,

00:00:33.027 --> 00:00:35.339
looks pretty good, because
we're not talking about

00:00:35.339 --> 00:00:37.419
something that just
happened in the past tense.

00:00:37.419 --> 00:00:40.463
So if this is last, so this
is a timeline right over here,

00:00:40.463 --> 00:00:41.903
and if this is last September,

00:00:41.903 --> 00:00:43.602
she starts working last September,

00:00:43.602 --> 00:00:47.739
but then she keeps
working since, since then.

00:00:47.739 --> 00:00:50.499
So we want something that is both,

00:00:50.499 --> 00:00:53.219
that starts in the past
but then keeps going

00:00:53.219 --> 00:00:55.039
on through the future.

00:00:55.039 --> 00:00:58.199
And so, that's what has
been working does for us.

00:00:58.199 --> 00:00:59.359
Now let's think about the other choices

00:00:59.359 --> 00:01:01.578
and see why they don't quite do that.

00:01:01.578 --> 00:01:05.343
So if we used works, works
is the present tense.

00:01:05.343 --> 00:01:08.351
That would mean that she's
only doing it right now.

00:01:08.351 --> 00:01:09.779
It doesn't mean that she's been doing it

00:01:09.779 --> 00:01:11.243
starting at some period in the past

00:01:11.243 --> 00:01:14.359
and continuing to do it all
the way through right now.

00:01:14.359 --> 00:01:15.588
So if we said since last September

00:01:15.588 --> 00:01:17.843
Patrica works at the
convenience store down the road,

00:01:17.843 --> 00:01:20.539
then we essentially have
the verb tense wrong,

00:01:20.539 --> 00:01:23.198
because this is starting
in the past and continuing,

00:01:23.198 --> 00:01:25.642
while this is just the present.

00:01:26.612 --> 00:01:29.143
Since last September Patricia is working

00:01:29.143 --> 00:01:30.764
at the convenience store down the road.

00:01:30.764 --> 00:01:34.344
So once again, this one is
talking about the present,

00:01:34.344 --> 00:01:37.084
while we want something
that starts in the past

00:01:37.084 --> 00:01:39.690
and then continues through the present.

00:01:39.690 --> 00:01:41.704
So this one is only the present.

00:01:41.704 --> 00:01:44.611
Since last September
Patricia will be working.

00:01:44.611 --> 00:01:46.713
Well this is now occurring in the future,

00:01:46.713 --> 00:01:48.424
and that's not what since last September

00:01:48.424 --> 00:01:50.229
is trying to talk about.

00:01:50.229 --> 00:01:51.964
Since last September, we
want to go to the past

00:01:51.964 --> 00:01:53.144
into the present.

00:01:53.144 --> 00:01:56.864
So we will throw out that.

00:01:56.864 --> 00:01:59.162
Will be working kind of implies that,

00:01:59.162 --> 00:02:02.165
well, we're really
talking about the future.

00:02:02.165 --> 00:02:04.540
And since last September Patricia worked.

00:02:04.540 --> 00:02:06.964
So this is strictly the past.

00:02:06.964 --> 00:02:09.024
It's not really talking about the past

00:02:09.024 --> 00:02:11.004
and continuing through the present.

00:02:11.004 --> 00:02:13.524
So since last September Patricia worked.

00:02:13.524 --> 00:02:14.780
That's kind of like, hey, she had worked,

00:02:14.780 --> 00:02:16.904
and maybe she's not working anymore,

00:02:16.904 --> 00:02:18.824
but we want to convey that
she started working then,

00:02:18.824 --> 00:02:20.084
and she's continuing to work.

00:02:20.084 --> 00:02:24.064
So has been working seems
to make the most sense.


5 Home colors

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:01.048 --> 00:00:02.210
- [Voiceover] The range of colors

00:00:02.210 --> 00:00:05.676
that homeowners could use on
the exterior of their houses

00:00:05.676 --> 00:00:10.676
was blank by the
community's stringent rules

00:00:10.684 --> 00:00:13.250
regarding upkeep of property.

00:00:13.250 --> 00:00:15.548
So we're talking about the range of colors

00:00:15.548 --> 00:00:18.706
that homeowners could use on
the exterior of their house.

00:00:18.706 --> 00:00:22.281
And it was blank by the
community's stringent rules.

00:00:22.281 --> 00:00:24.522
So stringent rules,
that means strict rules.

00:00:24.522 --> 00:00:27.622
They're not gonna allow
a lot of range of colors.

00:00:27.622 --> 00:00:30.002
They're going to be very, maybe, specific

00:00:30.002 --> 00:00:31.430
or they're going to try to limit

00:00:31.430 --> 00:00:33.519
the number of colors that
you might want to use.

00:00:33.519 --> 00:00:34.785
That's the way I'm thinking of this.

00:00:34.785 --> 00:00:36.584
Now let's look at the choices.

00:00:36.584 --> 00:00:39.510
So the first one is circumscribed,

00:00:39.510 --> 00:00:42.319
which means putting boundaries
on things, limiting things.

00:00:42.319 --> 00:00:45.349
That seems in line with
having stringent rules.

00:00:45.349 --> 00:00:47.624
The range of colors that
homeowners could use

00:00:47.624 --> 00:00:51.001
on the exterior of their
houses was circumscribed

00:00:51.001 --> 00:00:53.707
by the community's stringent rules

00:00:53.707 --> 00:00:56.505
regarding upkeep of property.

00:00:56.505 --> 00:00:58.142
That actually feels pretty good,

00:00:58.142 --> 00:01:00.882
so I'm gonna go with this one for now.

00:01:00.882 --> 00:01:02.635
They were trying to put restraints on

00:01:02.635 --> 00:01:04.794
or putting limits or putting boundaries

00:01:04.794 --> 00:01:08.141
which is what circumscribed means.

00:01:08.633 --> 00:01:10.048
Stringent rules would essentially

00:01:10.048 --> 00:01:12.347
circumscribe the range of colors.

00:01:12.347 --> 00:01:13.566
That makes sense.

00:01:13.566 --> 00:01:14.971
Let's look at these other choices.

00:01:14.971 --> 00:01:17.606
The range of colors that
homeowners could use

00:01:17.606 --> 00:01:19.161
on the exterior of their houses

00:01:19.161 --> 00:01:22.447
was bolstered by the
community's stringent rules.

00:01:22.447 --> 00:01:24.769
Well no, stringent rules
aren't going to bolster,

00:01:24.769 --> 00:01:26.487
they're not going to boost
the number of colors.

00:01:26.487 --> 00:01:27.926
They're not going to
give you more options.

00:01:27.926 --> 00:01:29.470
They're probably going to
give you fewer options.

00:01:29.470 --> 00:01:31.363
So let's rule that one out.

00:01:31.363 --> 00:01:34.741
The range of colors was embellished

00:01:34.741 --> 00:01:36.807
by the community's stringent rules?

00:01:36.807 --> 00:01:37.643
No, once again,

00:01:37.643 --> 00:01:39.419
embellishing means to add more,

00:01:39.419 --> 00:01:40.801
to kind of put some frills on it,

00:01:40.801 --> 00:01:43.005
to make it a little bit more exciting

00:01:43.005 --> 00:01:44.829
if we're talking about
embellishing a story.

00:01:44.829 --> 00:01:46.443
So stringent rules are not going to

00:01:46.443 --> 00:01:47.986
embellish a range of colors,

00:01:47.986 --> 00:01:49.728
they're going to restrict
a range of colors.

00:01:49.728 --> 00:01:52.282
They're not going to make
it even more exciting,

00:01:52.282 --> 00:01:54.984
more flowery, more options.

00:01:54.984 --> 00:01:58.189
So the range of colors was insinuated

00:01:58.189 --> 00:02:00.963
by the community's stringent rules?

00:02:00.963 --> 00:02:04.157
Insinuating means you're
implying something,

00:02:04.157 --> 00:02:05.400
you're hinting at something

00:02:05.400 --> 00:02:07.606
without really saying it directly.

00:02:07.606 --> 00:02:09.719
Now stringent rules seem
like the type of rules

00:02:09.719 --> 00:02:11.483
that they wouldn't try
beat around the bush.

00:02:11.483 --> 00:02:12.621
They would just get to the point.

00:02:12.621 --> 00:02:14.420
They wouldn't try to insinuate things.

00:02:14.420 --> 00:02:16.509
They wouldn't just try to hint.

00:02:16.509 --> 00:02:17.729
They would be very specific about

00:02:17.729 --> 00:02:19.389
"Look, this is what you can
do and what you can't do."

00:02:19.389 --> 00:02:21.792
So I don't think community stringent rules

00:02:21.792 --> 00:02:24.207
would try to insinuate a range of colors,

00:02:24.207 --> 00:02:25.553
they would just tell you,

00:02:25.553 --> 00:02:26.970
"Look, you're either
gonna do this or that,

00:02:26.970 --> 00:02:28.444
"this is allowed, this is not allowed."

00:02:28.444 --> 00:02:31.665
That's what makes them
stringent, very strict rules.

00:02:31.665 --> 00:02:35.584
The range of colors was cultivated

00:02:35.584 --> 00:02:37.813
by the community's stringent rules.

00:02:37.813 --> 00:02:39.391
Well once again cultivated means

00:02:39.391 --> 00:02:41.307
that you're helping to kind of develop.

00:02:41.307 --> 00:02:42.828
You're cultivating a garden,

00:02:42.828 --> 00:02:44.708
you're really fostering it,

00:02:44.708 --> 00:02:46.043
you're giving it nutrition,

00:02:46.043 --> 00:02:48.689
you're really trying to
make something blossom.

00:02:48.689 --> 00:02:50.664
And once again, stringent rules,

00:02:50.664 --> 00:02:52.045
that doesn't seem like something that

00:02:52.045 --> 00:02:54.971
would try to cultivate a range of colors.

00:02:54.971 --> 00:02:56.828
"Hey let's try and think of more colors.

00:02:56.828 --> 00:02:59.172
"Let's make sure we've thought
of all the colors possible

00:02:59.172 --> 00:03:00.485
and all of the rest."

00:03:00.485 --> 00:03:02.006
That doesn't make a lot of sense

00:03:02.006 --> 00:03:06.006
that stringent rules would try to do that.