Vcr Lesson 7 Word Usage Quiz

In the first sentence, the writer has confused the words "interior" and "anterior." "Interior" means "inside," but "anterior" means "in front." There is no job that is known as "anterior decorator." The third sentence doesn't make sense, because no dog has a tail in front! The fourth sentence doesn't make sense either, because the foundation is below the roof, not in front! The correct sentence is the second one, because prophase is a stage during cell division that comes before the metaphase stage.

For starters, "predestiny" is not a word, so we can rule out the first answer! The third answer doesn't work because only God can predestine people to anything; Mrs. Harrell is certainly powerful, but she's not God. The fourth answer doesn't make sense because predestination doesn't directly relate to finding a physical location, which is what a map or GPS would help with. The second answer is the correct one because it indicates that God planned for Mrs. Jameson to have a certain class of students, so it was predestined.

First of all, antebellum is an adjective, so it has to modify a noun. This means we can cross off the first two sentences right away, since it's not modifying a noun. Secondly, antebellum means "of a period before the war," so it doesn't seem right to use it to describe a piece of clothing, as it is in the third sentence. In the fourth sentence, "antebellum" modifies Mississippi and seems to mean something about the Civil War, so we can be sure this is correct.

In the fourth sentence, antecedent is used as a noun, which is clearly wrong, so we can cross that off. In the third sentence, antecede seems to mean something like "cut in line," but when "antecede" is used as a verb, it refers to time, not place. This is the same problem with sentence two--if the brother is ALWAYS antecedent to the sister, it seems to refer to their physical locations. "Antecedent to" can mean "before," when it is written before a period of time. In the first sentence, this is true, so the first sentence is the correct answer.

First, think about the parts of speech that "avant-garde" can be. It can be an adjective, meaning something like "new and controversial" or a noun, meaning "people who use or produce what is new." In the first sentence, avant-garde is used as a noun, and techno music is called "an avant-garde," but music is not the same as a group of people, so this sentence doesn't work. In the second sentence, there's no reason to make a connection between "the avant-garde" and stealing or protecting something from theft, so that doesn't make sense. The fourth sentence also misuses "avant-garde," since there's no such thing as a singluar avant-garde (as a noun, it is plural!). The third sentence is the one that works, because Picasso's paintings were new and controversial--people didn't understand them and weren't sure what they thought of them.

In the fourth sentence, "vanguard" is used to mean "guard," which is clearly wrong, since "vanguard" doesn't directly relate to guarding anything. In the third sentence, it is used to mean something like a bumper, but it isn't possible to dent a vanguard, so this sentence is wrong as well. The second sentence doesn't work because a vanguard comes before others, not after. Dr. Johnson, however, is a leader in his scientific movement or trend, so he is in the vanguard of the movement. Since a vanguard is a group of people, Dr. Johnson is not by himself the vanguard, but he is in the vanguard.

The fourth sentence uses premonition as a verb, so it's clearly wrong; "premonition" is always a noun. The third sentence uses premonition incorrectly because although a premonition is a warning, it's not a warning that one person gives to another. The second sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do with warnings, so we can rule it out. The first sentence is the one that works, because the speaker "has" a warning in advance (that came from nowhere) that something will happen. The "something that will happen" is usually bad.

The fourth sentence doesn't work because pretentious does not actually have anything to do directly with comfort. The reason that the vocabulary book uses a pretentious hotel is to show the difference between the pretense and the reality (what is pretended and what is actually true). The third sentence doesn't work because just being brightly colored doesn't make something pretentious, and there's little reason to think that a fireman would wear something pretentious--fireman have to be strictly concerned with how useful their gear is. The second sentence doesn't work because pretentious doesn't just mean that someone is playing imaginary games, or is imaginative. Pretentiousness is negative, and there's nothing wrong with the sister playing pretend games. It is the first sentence that is correct--wearing a coat that is fancier than the event a person is attending is pretentious, because it makes the wearer seem like she is trying to impress people with her clothes.

In the first sentence, a better word would be "rules." This is a more specific situation than "precept" usually means. The second sentence is wrong because it's a misspelling of "perception," since the sentence refers to someone seeing something wrongly, and that doesn't relate to what a precept is. The third sentence uses "precept" to mean "fact," which is not a synonym for precept. The fourth sentence uses "precept" correctly, since respecting others' time is a principle to follow.

The first sentence does not work because the form of the word is wrong--if it were "prejudiced, with a "d," " instead of "prejudice," the sentence would be just fine. The second sentence does not work because although prejudice can be used as a verb, this is not the way it is used. "The nurse was prejudiced against the man because she had formed an opinion..." would work. The fourth sentence is also grammatically incorrect--it should be "prejudiced." The third sentence is the one that works, because the woman in it has formed a general opinion about white people without having met them. An odd situation in the United States, but stereotypes go in many directions.

The fourth answer doesn't work because preempted is not the same as precluded; in the fourth sentence, the word should be "precluded." In the third sentence, preempted is used in terms of taking or stealing, which isn't quite right. If the third sentence were "Her taking the soda preempted my getting a can" it would work, but it's awkward. The second sentence also doesn't work; one cannot preempt "from" something. The first sentence is the correct answer because one event (Mrs. Pala giving directions) made their questions unnecessary, or preempted them. I'm sorry the definition in the vocabulary book isn't terribly clear!