Proper speech and sentence construction isn't just about SAT® scores—it's about clear communication that can have real-world consequences.
Government Recruiting & Public Service Announcements:
❌ Incorrect: "He told me he was a V.A. cop and just like everyone else, we're suprised the V.A. even has police officers."
✅ Correct: "He told me he was a VA police officer, and like many others, I was surprised to learn the VA even had police officers."
Video: The Veterans Health Administration | Public Service Announcement
The original statement contains multiple issues:
- Colloquial phrasing: “cop” and “just like everyone else” are informal and imprecise. In professional or public-facing writing and speech, use formal titles like “VA Police Officer.”
- Modifier ambiguity: “Just like everyone else” is vague and grammatically malformed. A clearer phrase like “like many others” maintains tone, while improving clarity.
- Spelling and register: “Suprised” is a misspelling of “surprised,” and the sentence lacks subject–verb agreement consistency (“we’re surprised” vs. “he told me”).
- Verb-tense consistency: The original statement mixes past and present tenses. Because the speaker is describing a past experience, the surprise should be expressed in the past: “was surprised” and “had.” This ensures narrative coherence and grammatical accuracy.
In public service announcements—especially those representing federal agencies—language, should be correct, precise, and clear.
Real World Application: The High Stakes of Misplaced Modifiers
In legal, technical, and governmental writing, a single misplaced adverb or misapplied adjective can distort intent, void agreements, or even endanger lives. These aren’t hypotheticals—they’re documented failures stemming from the very modifier errors the SAT® tests.
Public Safety Alert Ambiguity (FEMA, 2022)
Ambiguous: "Residents should only evacuate when notified by officials."
Clear: "Residents should evacuate only when notified by officials."
The first version’s placement of "only" suggests residents should take no other action (like gathering supplies). The corrected version does not exclude evacuation. In fact, by stating that the people "should evacuate" first signals that an evacuation may be imminent and should be done, but under the condition that they are told to do so. So, the second version signals evacuation timing, not whether or not the person should evacuate. During Hurricane Ian, this ambiguity led to delayed evacuations in Florida—proving modifier placement affects compliance.
SAT-Aligned Correction
⚠️ Common but Incorrect: "VA nurses are working hard to ensure all patients receive quick medical care."
Precise: "VA nurses are working hard to ensure all patients receive medical care quickly."
Why it matters: The phrase “quick medical care” confuses modifier function: quick is an adjective, but here we need the adverb quickly to modify the verb receive, since it is illogical to imply or state that "care" can be "quick." Care is the "what" that is being offered, and the "what" gets modified by an adjective, not an adverb. In other words, "care" is the noun being received—it’s the object of the action, not the action itself—so it must be modified by an adjective, not an adverb. This mirrors common SAT prompts that test your ability to distinguish between verbs being modified by adverbs and nouns being modified by adjectives.
Corporate Example: An adapted excerpt, modeled after the tone of a 2023 Tesla SEC filing, reads: "Our AI nearly prevented all collisions in Q3." The misplaced "nearly" suggests that the AI wasn't completely able to prevent all the collisions that occurred. In the sentence “Our AI nearly prevented all collisions,” the adverb “nearly” modifies the verb “prevented,” which implies the AI tried but failed to prevent collisions. A clearer version would be: "Our AI prevented nearly all collisions in Q3," which subtly clarifies that there was a very high success rate in preventing collisions—avoiding investor confusion.
Legal Example: Modifier Ambiguity in Firearm Legislation
Consider the following clause from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by individuals:
“...who are subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner...”
📜 Judicial Clarification (2024):
In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court upheld the statute, clarifying that the modifying phrase “that restrains such person...” applies directly to the subject of the sentence—the individual prohibited from possessing firearms. The Court emphasized that the statute targets individuals under active restraining orders, not those merely accused or tangentially involved.
⚖️ Misreading That Sparked Legal Challenge:
The defense argued that the modifier “that restrains such person...” was ambiguous and could be read as modifying the court order rather than the individual, potentially broadening the statute’s reach to unconstitutional levels. This interpretation hinged on the placement of the relative clause and whether it clearly restricted the subject or the object—an issue of syntactic precision with constitutional consequences.
Legal Consideration: In statutory interpretation, misplaced or ambiguously placed modifiers can shift the scope of a law entirely. In Rahimi, the Court’s majority opinion leaned on grammatical structure to uphold the statute’s constitutionality, while the dissent warned that unclear modifier placement could invite future overreach. This case underscores how modifier clarity isn’t just a grammar issue—it’s a matter of due process, civil rights, and public safety.
Still Not Convinced?
The College Board Digital SAT isn’t just a stepping stone to college—it's a real-world filter. It gauges how well you command the language and logic that professionals use every day in high-stakes careers. Think about it: If you're drafting a legal brief, interpreting a zoning statute, or responding to a federal grant proposal, precision isn't optional—it's mission-critical.
A misplaced modifier in a court filing can shift liability. An ambiguous clause in a contract can cost millions. A vague subject–verb mismatch in a government procurement report? That can delay funding or trigger compliance flags. So, while the SAT® converts the proper application of “Standard English Conventions,” into a higher score, everyday professionals convert it into reputational currency.
In short: The skills you’re sharpening, as you prepare for the SAT®, don’t stay in the classroom or the college campus. They follow you into conference rooms, through courtrooms, and into boardrooms—every time you raise the stakes throughout your professional career.
