We need to identify the statement that coincides with the aspects discussed by the author. By adopting the author's perspective, we understand that grammar, along with the need for its proper learning, stands as the central idea to convey. The author contends that writers with a solid grasp of basic grammar rules can appreciate its "comforting simplicity at its heart." Therefore, the author is likely to endorse any stance in line with this notion.
Option A: The focus is broader, encompassing grammar rather than solely concentrating on punctuation and capitalization.
Option B: The author wouldn't likely advocate for such extreme measures, as it contrasts with the tone. While the author acknowledges the flexibility of grammatical rules, it's emphasized for those proficient in it. Therefore, this option can be discarded.
Option C: The author doesn't advocate for abandoning rhetoric, which diverges from the passage's discussion. Thus, this choice can be eliminated as the correct one.
Option D: This assertion would undoubtedly complement the author's claim, facilitating writers with a necessary understanding of the governing rules—an aspect underscored by the author. Thus, it's probable that the author would support such a proposition. Clearly, Option D emerges as the most sensible statement that the author would support here.
So, the correct option is (D): The availability of language software that will standardise the rules of grammar as an aid to writers.
The author aims to emphasize that the fundamental pairing of a noun and a verb represents the most elementary form of expression. This combination, comprising two fundamental yet highly consequential entities, symbolizes a larger and potentially intricate group of entities—a sentence.
Option D closely mirrors this relationship: vegetables and spices, two elements merged to signify a broader concept - 'dishes'. Conversely, the other options diverge from the central message being communicated.
The correct option is (D):Take any vegetable, put some spices in it, and you have a dish.
Option A: The author does not assert such a claim. Grammar functions as a tool to structure communication and prevent confusion. However, ensuring sentences remain "simple" is not the "primary purpose" of grammar. Since this statement cannot be inferred from the passage, it is the correct answer.
Option B: Drawing from the limited information provided in the passage, we can infer this from "...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)..."
Option C: Although not explicitly stated, we can grasp the implication behind the term "Grammar Police". The author utilizes this metaphor to represent staunch adherents of grammatical rules, who may swiftly judge and criticize.
Option D: This deduction can be drawn from the passage's excerpt: "... Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren't going to come and take you away..." Here, the author employs an example to demonstrate how a simple combination of a noun and a verb constructs a comprehensive expression.
Therefore, we can deduce all statements except for the one presented in Option A.
So, the correct option is (A): the primary purpose of grammar is to ensure that sentences remain simple.
The author initiates by underscoring the essential need for a system of regulations, facilitated by grammar, to structure communication and prevent misunderstandings. Subsequently, the author introduces additional arguments supporting this notion, involving elements related to rhetoric and its practitioners, while emphasizing that even deliberate simplification can only be achieved with a solid understanding of grammatical basics. Thus, it becomes apparent that grammar holds central importance here, and the correct selection should undoubtedly align with this emphasis.
Option A effectively encapsulates the primary concern addressed in the passage.
Options B and D neglect to incorporate the central theme of grammar and instead concentrate on supplementary aspects.
Option C comes close; however, the reference to nouns and verbs is intended to complement the idea highlighted in Option A. They simply serve as illustrations to underscore the importance of grammar.
Therefore, between the two options A and C, Option A emerges as the appropriate choice.
So, the correct option is (A): “Bad grammar produces bad sentences.”
We need to identify a statement that, if false, corresponds with the discussion or acts as a supporting argument. Let's assess the options individually:
Option A: Currently, this statement aligns with the author's assertion. However, if it were false, it would contradict the claim made in the passage. Thus, we can dismiss this option.
Option B: This statement suggests that complete sentences don't require nouns and verbs. However, the passage contradicts this notion; therefore, if this statement were false, it would align perfectly with the argument presented in the passage.
Consequently, if Option B were false, it could serve as a supplementary argument.
Options C and D: Whether these statements are true or false, they contribute minimally to advancing the idea presented in the passage.
The correct option is (B): Perish the thought that complete sentences necessarily need nouns and verbs!
“Why do they pull down and do away with crooked streets, I wonder, which are my delight, and hurt no man living? Every day the wealthier nations are pulling down one or another in their capitals and their great towns: they do not know why they do it; neither do I. It ought to be enough, surely, to drive the great broad ways which commerce needs and which are the life-channels of a modern city, without destroying all history and all the humanity in between: the islands of the past.” (From Hilaire Belloc’s “The Crooked Streets”)
Based only on the information provided in the above passage, which one of the following statements is true?