Choose the option that best completes each sentence in standard British English.
1............... for the technician's intervention before the server failed, the encrypted records would have been irretrievably lost that night.
Wrong!
"Had it not been" places the counterfactual condition before the unreal past result.
2At noon, on this single journey, the envoy was believed ............... the border before dawn that same day, although the logs later disproved this.
Wrong!
"to have crossed" marks the alleged crossing as anterior to the belief held at noon.
3Because the audit found a universal rather than merely partial failure of compliance, the report concludes that ............... the branches had retained the required records.
Wrong!
"none of" expresses universal failure; "not all of" would allow some branches to have complied.
4The first analysis predicts that inflation will fall abruptly, whereas the second does ...............; what it predicts is that the rate of increase will merely slow.
Wrong!
"not" negates the proposition recovered through ellipsis, consistently with the second analysis's different prediction.
5The consortium made extensive concessions, although the rival bid's later withdrawal showed that it ............... them.
Wrong!
"need not have made" describes an action that occurred but subsequently proved unnecessary.
6Even if the witness had recanted—which she demonstrably did not—the documentary evidence ............... sufficient to sustain the verdict at the time.
Wrong!
"would still have been" forms the result clause of the unreal past concession.
7The drafter is specifying the precise respect in which the claim is restricted, not giving a reason for the restriction: the claim is limited ............... it covers retrospective data only.
Wrong!
"in that" identifies the particular respect in which the claim is limited.
8The ruling states that under no circumstances ............... before both parties have been heard, the wording imposing a prohibition rather than offering advice.
Wrong!
"may the evidence be disclosed" has the required subject–auxiliary inversion after the fronted negative expression.
9The recovered records prove that the transfer occurred, so the solicitor's claim that it ............... is no longer tenable.
Wrong!
"cannot have occurred" expresses an alleged past impossibility that the recovered records directly refute.
10The concession does not make the theory plausible; still less ............... it.
Wrong!
"does it vindicate" uses inversion after the fronted negative scalar expression "still less".
11Consent is the sole legal prerequisite, and a court order can replace it; ............... either consent is obtained or such an order is issued, disclosure remains unlawful.
Wrong!
"unless" introduces the exceptional conditions under which disclosure ceases to be unlawful.
12The later account is no more independent of the official narrative than the earlier one ...............; both reproduce its distinctive errors.
Wrong!
"is" supplies positive comparative-clause polarity despite the negative meaning of "no more".
Exercise complete
0 out of 12
correct answers
Answers
- Had it not been for the technician’s intervention before the server failed, the encrypted records would have been irretrievably lost that night.
- At noon, on this single journey, the envoy was believed to have crossed the border before dawn that same day, although the logs later disproved this.
- Because the audit found a universal rather than merely partial failure of compliance, the report concludes that none of the branches had retained the required records.
- The first analysis predicts that inflation will fall abruptly, whereas the second does not; what it predicts is that the rate of increase will merely slow.
- The consortium made extensive concessions, although the rival bid’s later withdrawal showed that it need not have made them.
- Even if the witness had recanted—which she demonstrably did not—the documentary evidence would still have been sufficient to sustain the verdict at the time.
- The drafter is specifying the precise respect in which the claim is restricted, not giving a reason for the restriction: the claim is limited in that it covers retrospective data only.
- The ruling states that under no circumstances may the evidence be disclosed before both parties have been heard, the wording imposing a prohibition rather than offering advice.
- The recovered records prove that the transfer occurred, so the solicitor’s claim that it cannot have occurred is no longer tenable.
- The concession does not make the theory plausible; still less does it vindicate it.
- Consent is the sole legal prerequisite, and a court order can replace it; Unless either consent is obtained or such an order is issued, disclosure remains unlawful.
- The later account is no more independent of the official narrative than the earlier one is; both reproduce its distinctive errors.