Find out grammatically correct sentence.
Anonymous Quiz
16%
A. Due to the team's well-thought strategy, their efforts lacked coordination and consistency.
20%
B. Despite the team's well-thought strategy, their efforts lacking coordination and consistency.
17%
C. Despite the team's well-thought strategy, their efforts lacked coordination and consistent.
47%
D. Despite the team's well-thought strategy, their efforts lacked coordination and consistency.
📍 [6] "The team leader called up each employee separately but failed to bring out their actual grievances."
The original sentence, "The team leader called up each employee separately but failed to bring out their actual grievances," is grammatically acceptable and clearly understandable. However, depending on context and desired tone, a few alternatives or points of refinement can be considered.
🟤Breakdown of the sentence
👉🏻"The team leader called up": In American English, "called up" is interchangeable with "called" when referring to a telephone call. The phrasal verb "call up" can also mean "to summon before an authority". Since the leader is summoning the employees to a meeting, both interpretations are valid, and the phrase is grammatically sound.
👉🏻"each employee separately": This is a clear and effective way to describe a series of one-on-one meetings.
👉🏻"but failed to bring out": The use of "but" correctly indicates a contrast between the leader's action and the lack of a result. The phrasal verb "bring out" means to elicit or cause something to be revealed, which fits the context of trying to get information from someone.
👉🏻"their actual grievances": This is the most common point of grammatical debate. Using the plural pronoun "their" to refer to the singular subject "each employee" is increasingly accepted in modern English as a singular they. It is often preferred to avoid the more formal and gender-specific "his or her".
🟤Alternative phrasing and refinements
Here are a few ways to refine the sentence for different contexts.
🍀1. More formal or precise:
This version avoids the singular "they" for those who prefer strict pronoun-antecedent agreement.
🔹"The team leader called up each employee separately but failed to bring out his or her actual grievances."
🍀2. More concise and direct:
This removes the phrasal verb "called up" for a more direct and concise tone, common in business writing.
🔹"The team leader spoke with each employee separately but failed to bring out their actual grievances."
🔹"The team leader met with each employee individually but failed to elicit their actual grievances."
🍀3. Focus on the reason for the failure:
This option places the emphasis on the leader's action rather than the employees' response.
🔹"The team leader met with each employee individually but was unable to get them to express their actual grievances."
🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸
SV RAMANUJ
The original sentence, "The team leader called up each employee separately but failed to bring out their actual grievances," is grammatically acceptable and clearly understandable. However, depending on context and desired tone, a few alternatives or points of refinement can be considered.
🟤Breakdown of the sentence
👉🏻"The team leader called up": In American English, "called up" is interchangeable with "called" when referring to a telephone call. The phrasal verb "call up" can also mean "to summon before an authority". Since the leader is summoning the employees to a meeting, both interpretations are valid, and the phrase is grammatically sound.
👉🏻"each employee separately": This is a clear and effective way to describe a series of one-on-one meetings.
👉🏻"but failed to bring out": The use of "but" correctly indicates a contrast between the leader's action and the lack of a result. The phrasal verb "bring out" means to elicit or cause something to be revealed, which fits the context of trying to get information from someone.
👉🏻"their actual grievances": This is the most common point of grammatical debate. Using the plural pronoun "their" to refer to the singular subject "each employee" is increasingly accepted in modern English as a singular they. It is often preferred to avoid the more formal and gender-specific "his or her".
🟤Alternative phrasing and refinements
Here are a few ways to refine the sentence for different contexts.
🍀1. More formal or precise:
This version avoids the singular "they" for those who prefer strict pronoun-antecedent agreement.
🔹"The team leader called up each employee separately but failed to bring out his or her actual grievances."
🍀2. More concise and direct:
This removes the phrasal verb "called up" for a more direct and concise tone, common in business writing.
🔹"The team leader spoke with each employee separately but failed to bring out their actual grievances."
🔹"The team leader met with each employee individually but failed to elicit their actual grievances."
🍀3. Focus on the reason for the failure:
This option places the emphasis on the leader's action rather than the employees' response.
🔹"The team leader met with each employee individually but was unable to get them to express their actual grievances."
🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸
SV RAMANUJ
📍[9] "He had never seen such a masterpiece until he visited the gallery last spring."
The sentence is grammatically correct. It correctly uses the past perfect tense ("had never seen") to describe a state that existed up until a specific point in the past.
👉🏻Here is a breakdown of the grammar:
🌺Past perfect tense: The phrase "had never seen" is in the past perfect tense. It describes an action or state that was true up to a certain time in the past. In this case, the man's state of "never having seen a masterpiece like it" continued up until the moment he visited the gallery.
🌺Sequential events: This structure effectively communicates a sequence of two past events:
First, there was a period of time when the person had not seen such a masterpiece.
Second, the person visited the gallery last spring, and that event changed the situation.
🌺"Until" as a conjunction: The word "until" works as a subordinating conjunction that connects the two actions and marks the point in time when the first action (not seeing the masterpiece) was superseded by the second.
👉🏻Possible variations and their nuance
While the original sentence is correct, you can use a different structure with a slightly different nuance:
🌹Using the simple past: "He didn't see such a masterpiece until he visited the gallery last spring." This is also correct and means essentially the same thing, though some might consider the past perfect version to be slightly more emphatic about the long period of "never having seen" before the specific event.
🌹Using "before": "He had never seen such a masterpiece before he visited the gallery last spring." The word "before" indicates a relative position in time, similar to "until," and is also a correct option.
🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸
SV RAMANUJ
The sentence is grammatically correct. It correctly uses the past perfect tense ("had never seen") to describe a state that existed up until a specific point in the past.
👉🏻Here is a breakdown of the grammar:
🌺Past perfect tense: The phrase "had never seen" is in the past perfect tense. It describes an action or state that was true up to a certain time in the past. In this case, the man's state of "never having seen a masterpiece like it" continued up until the moment he visited the gallery.
🌺Sequential events: This structure effectively communicates a sequence of two past events:
First, there was a period of time when the person had not seen such a masterpiece.
Second, the person visited the gallery last spring, and that event changed the situation.
🌺"Until" as a conjunction: The word "until" works as a subordinating conjunction that connects the two actions and marks the point in time when the first action (not seeing the masterpiece) was superseded by the second.
👉🏻Possible variations and their nuance
While the original sentence is correct, you can use a different structure with a slightly different nuance:
🌹Using the simple past: "He didn't see such a masterpiece until he visited the gallery last spring." This is also correct and means essentially the same thing, though some might consider the past perfect version to be slightly more emphatic about the long period of "never having seen" before the specific event.
🌹Using "before": "He had never seen such a masterpiece before he visited the gallery last spring." The word "before" indicates a relative position in time, similar to "until," and is also a correct option.
🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸
SV RAMANUJ
📍[10] "The professor's explanation was filled with clarity yet managed to obfuscate more than elucidate."
The sentence, "The professor's explanation was filled with clarity yet managed to obfuscate more than elucidate," is grammatically correct and an effective use of a literary device called a paradox. It does not contain any errors in spelling, syntax, or punctuation.
👉🏻Here's an analysis of the sentence:
🩷Paradoxical meaning: The sentence uses two contradictory ideas side-by-side. The explanation was "filled with clarity" (clear), yet it "managed to obfuscate" (make confusing). It presents an idea that is seemingly self-contradictory but contains a deeper truth: the professor's explanation, despite being superficially clear in its presentation, somehow made the topic less understandable overall.
🧡Literary effect: This paradox emphasizes the professor's poor teaching. A straight-forward sentence might say, "The professor's explanation was confusing," but the original version is more powerful. It suggests that the manner of explanation was clear, but the content or method ultimately created more confusion than understanding.
🩵Vocabulary usage: The word choice is sophisticated and precise.
🔹Obfuscate: To make something unclear or hard to understand.
🔹Elucidate: To make something clear; to explain.
🔹The contrasting use of these two words highlights the failure of the lecture.
🧡Grammatical structure: The sentence is properly structured with a subject ("The professor's explanation") and a compound predicate ("was filled with clarity yet managed to obfuscate..."). The conjunction "yet" correctly joins the two contrasting clauses.
🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸
SV RAMANUJ
The sentence, "The professor's explanation was filled with clarity yet managed to obfuscate more than elucidate," is grammatically correct and an effective use of a literary device called a paradox. It does not contain any errors in spelling, syntax, or punctuation.
👉🏻Here's an analysis of the sentence:
🩷Paradoxical meaning: The sentence uses two contradictory ideas side-by-side. The explanation was "filled with clarity" (clear), yet it "managed to obfuscate" (make confusing). It presents an idea that is seemingly self-contradictory but contains a deeper truth: the professor's explanation, despite being superficially clear in its presentation, somehow made the topic less understandable overall.
🧡Literary effect: This paradox emphasizes the professor's poor teaching. A straight-forward sentence might say, "The professor's explanation was confusing," but the original version is more powerful. It suggests that the manner of explanation was clear, but the content or method ultimately created more confusion than understanding.
🩵Vocabulary usage: The word choice is sophisticated and precise.
🔹Obfuscate: To make something unclear or hard to understand.
🔹Elucidate: To make something clear; to explain.
🔹The contrasting use of these two words highlights the failure of the lecture.
🧡Grammatical structure: The sentence is properly structured with a subject ("The professor's explanation") and a compound predicate ("was filled with clarity yet managed to obfuscate..."). The conjunction "yet" correctly joins the two contrasting clauses.
🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸
SV RAMANUJ