Choose the option that correctly completes each sentence.
1Only after the data had been recalibrated ............... the anomaly that invalidated the earlier projection.
Wrong!
A fronted restrictive adverbial beginning with "Only after" requires inversion in the main clause: "did the analysts identify".
2Not until the appeal had been heard ............... whether the exclusion was procedurally fair.
Wrong!
Fronted "Not until" triggers subject–auxiliary inversion in the main clause: "could the tribunal determine".
3No sooner ............... than the server began rejecting valid credentials.
Wrong!
The construction "No sooner ... than" requires inversion, with the earlier past event in the past perfect: "had the patch been deployed".
4Hardly ............... the witness's account when newly recovered footage contradicted it.
Wrong!
Sentence-initial "Hardly" requires inversion, and the earlier event takes the past perfect: "had the inquiry accepted".
5Under no circumstances ............... to disclose the source without written consent.
Wrong!
A fronted negative adverbial requires the modal to precede the subject: "should the researchers be pressured".
6............... access to the unredacted files; all other reviewers saw edited copies.
Wrong!
Because "Only" restricts the subject itself, it does not trigger inversion: "Only the external auditors were granted".
7Not only ............... the deadline, but it also failed to notify the client promptly.
Wrong!
When "Not only" introduces a whole clause, subject–auxiliary inversion is required: "did the contractor miss".
8Little ............... that the apparently minor omission would derail the entire procurement process.
Wrong!
Fronted negative "Little" meaning ‘not at all’ requires inversion: "did we suspect".
9Nowhere in the published judgment ............... why the earlier precedent was distinguished.
Wrong!
The fronted negative place expression "Nowhere" triggers inversion: "does the court explain".
10Only if both parties waive confidentiality ............... details discussed during mediation.
Wrong!
A fronted restrictive condition beginning with "Only if" triggers inversion in the main clause: "may the mediator disclose".
11The amendment did not resolve the jurisdictional conflict; ............... how overlapping claims should be prioritised.
Wrong!
Clause-initial "nor" continues the negative statement and requires inversion: "nor did it clarify".
12Not a single objection ............... during the statutory consultation, yet three members later opposed implementation.
Wrong!
Fronting the negative object "Not a single objection" requires subject–auxiliary inversion: "did the panel raise".
Done.
Score: 0/12
Answers
- Only after the data had been recalibrated did the analysts identify the anomaly that invalidated the earlier projection.
- Not until the appeal had been heard could the tribunal determine whether the exclusion was procedurally fair.
- No sooner had the patch been deployed than the server began rejecting valid credentials.
- Hardly had the inquiry accepted the witness’s account when newly recovered footage contradicted it.
- Under no circumstances should the researchers be pressured to disclose the source without written consent.
- Only the external auditors were granted access to the unredacted files; all other reviewers saw edited copies.
- Not only did the contractor miss the deadline, but it also failed to notify the client promptly.
- Little did we suspect that the apparently minor omission would derail the entire procurement process.
- Nowhere in the published judgment does the court explain why the earlier precedent was distinguished.
- Only if both parties waive confidentiality may the mediator disclose details discussed during mediation.
- The amendment did not resolve the jurisdictional conflict; nor did it clarify how overlapping claims should be prioritised.
- Not a single objection did the panel raise during the statutory consultation, yet three members later opposed implementation.
