{"id":3694,"date":"2022-04-04T02:16:00","date_gmt":"2022-04-03T20:46:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/?p=3694"},"modified":"2022-04-04T17:29:54","modified_gmt":"2022-04-04T11:59:54","slug":"solve-questions-of-comprehension-passage-25","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/solve-questions-of-comprehension-passage-25\/","title":{"rendered":"Solve Questions of Comprehension Passage – 25"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vocabulary used in speech or writing organizes itself in seven parts of speech (eight, if you count interjections such as Oh! and Gosh! and Fuhgeddaboudit!). Communication composed of these parts of speech must be organized by rules of grammar upon which we agree. When these rules break down, confusion and misunderstanding result. Bad grammar produces bad sentences. My favorite example from Strunk and White is this one: \u201cAs a mother of five, with another one on the way, my ironing board is always up.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nouns and verbs are the two indispensable parts of writing. Without one of each, no group of words can be a sentence, since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb); these strings of words begin with a capital letter, end with a period, and combine to make a complete thought which starts in the writer\u2019s head and then leaps to the reader\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren\u2019t going to come and take you away. Even William Strunk, that Mussolini of rhetoric, recognized the delicious pliability of language. \u201cIt is an old observation,\u201d he writes, \u201cthat the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric.\u201d Yet he goes on to add this thought, which I urge you to consider: \u201cUnless he is certain of doing well, [the writer] will probably do best to follow the rules.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The telling clause here is Unless he is certain of doing well. If you don\u2019t have a rudimentary grasp of how the parts of speech translate into coherent sentences, how can you be certain that you are doing well? How will you know if you\u2019re doing ill, for that matter? The answer, of course, is that you can\u2019t, you won\u2019t. One who does grasp the rudiments of grammar finds a comforting simplicity at its heart, where there need be only nouns, the words that name, and verbs, the words that act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take any noun, put it with any verb, and you have a sentence. It never fails. Rocks explode. Jane transmits. Mountains float. These are all perfect sentences. Many such thoughts make little rational sense, but even the stranger ones (Plums deify!) have a kind of poetic weight that\u2019s nice. The simplicity of noun-verb construction is useful\u2014at the very least it can provide a safety net for your writing. Strunk and White caution against too many simple sentences in a row, but simple sentences provide a path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric\u2014all those restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, those modifying phrases, those appositives and compound-complex sentences. If you start to freak out at the sight of such unmapped territory (unmapped by you, at least), just remind yourself that rocks explode, Jane transmits, mountains float, and plums deify. Grammar is . . . the pole you grab to get your thoughts up on their feet and walking.<\/p>\n\n\n