BBC News's Grammar Quiz

[Mise]

Take the BBC News Website Magazine's Grammar Quiz! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22512744

What did you score?

Spoiler :

And did you notice that the answer to one question actually contradicted a previous question?

 

[Borachio]

Yay! 9/10

 

[Silurian]

5 out of 10.

 

[Yeekim]

8 points.

Failed the Churchill one and the modal/gerund/whatever one...

 

[bhsup]

Botched Hilary...
Botched semicolon...
WTH is modal, gerand, imperative?

7!! Promising pedant!

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. Hilary got me too. I wasn't expecting that.

A very tricksy little test altogether.

 

[Quackers]

5/10

I'm a promising pedant.
Ahh well, I guess i'll prepare to be embarrassed by non-native speakers...

 

[Mise]

"Hilary" was the one that was contradicted by a later question. The Hilary question used "which" to introduce a restrictive clause; indeed, it was the use of "which" to introduce a restrictive, rather than a non-restrictive, clause that gave the reader adequate information to answer the question. Question 7, however, claims that "which" should not be used to introduce a restrictive clause ("that" should be used instead). If the rule in question 7 is followed, then the original question was simply ungrammatical as written: parenthetical commas should be placed around the "which does not" part of the sentence, and thus nothing can be gleaned from it about Hilary's gender. There is, of course, no rule that prevents "which" being used to introduce a restrictive clause: it is merely a convention or style issue. However, if you are going to use that rule -- and claim that it is a rule -- then you should be consistent about it!

I got 10/10 btw (which is why I posted it here )

EDIT: Oh, wait, it's "who" in the Hilary question isn't it, not "which". I guess that means it's technically not contradictory. Okay, I'll let you off, BBC News Website Magazine Grammar Quiz...

 

[Arakhor]

I got nine out of ten, so nuh.

 

[bhsup]

I think I am going to arbitrarily boost my score to 9/10. This test is based on UK-English instead of standard, proper English as spoken here in the States. Surely at least two of the three I missed were actually correct, but deemed incorrect by weird UK-English rules.

 

[Mise]

I didn't notice any rules that were specific to British English or that weren't standard in American English. But simply being VRWCAgent automatically gives you +2 points

 

[bhsup]

See? See? This is why our 'special relationship' is awesome! Okay, enough of the cross-pond love fest. Back to users posting scores.

 

[Arakhor]

I think I am going to arbitrarily boost my score to 9/10. This test is based on UK-English instead of standard, proper English as spoken here in the States. Surely at least two of the three I missed were actually correct, but deemed incorrect by weird UK-English rules.

Well, if you will handicap yourself with incorrect English, we do need to provide an equal opportunities modifier.

 

[really]

Woeful. But sure it's grand.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I refuse to take it. I only speak Strayn.

 

[Winston Hughes]

10/10

Know your enemy.

 

[peter grimes]

9/10. Botched the Hilary one.

Glad to see I'm in good company on that error

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I only got 3 out of 10, and two of those were guesses.

 

[Bartleby]

8/10

The two I got wrong were; Hilary and the semicolon.

 

[classical_hero]

I got 4/10. Stupid test. Who follows the rules of grammar anyway?