Standard English Conventions

Understanding Modifiers for The College Board Digital SAT

Communication Essentials

The Test Question

Which choice completes the text so that it conforms to the conventions of Standard English?

"Pursuit & Persistence: 300 Years of Women in Science," at the American Philosophical Society Museum, highlights significant achievements by women over three centuries. It includes geneticist Barbara McClintock’s Nobel acceptance speech, and it displays artifacts from biochemist Mildred Cohn, who contributed to the development of medical technologies. The exhibit explores systemic challenges and institutionalized discrimination, encouraging visitors to reflect on the underrepresented narratives of the women in science _________ long overlooked in historical accounts about major discoveries.

A. which was
B. who were
C. having been
D. being

While subject–verb agreement is one component, this question chiefly assesses your ability to identify a restrictive relative clause that properly modifies a plural, animate noun. In other words, it combines three Standard English fluency skills.

Unpacking the Question

To answer these types of questions, you need to:

  • Look at the sentence structure and identify if the relative pronouns match what they reference.
  • Understand subject–verb agreement, and recognize when a subject doesn't match the verb's singular or plural form.
  • Check for any tense shifts or other mismatches.
  • Think about each option and how clear and natural it sounds.
  • Pick the option that sounds the best and follows grammar rules.

In this case, the sentence focuses on a noun-modifying clause formation. The word “women,” particularly those who have been long overlooked, is the central part of the passage to focus on. It’s important to consider how each option fits with the meaning and tone of this part of the sentence. Let’s dig into how the following examples align with basic English rules that are reinforced in this type of test question.

Mastering Sentence Structure

Understanding the parts of speech in a statement is essential to make sure your sentences sound right and are grammatically correct. Let's take a look at how this works:

Correct Usage
Pharmaceutical Sales Reps whose salaries exceed or meet $100,000 a year typically have strong interpersonal skills in addition to relevant coursework and experience in sales, psychology, or life sciences.
This sentence correctly uses the possessive relative pronoun “whose” to introduce a restrictive clause modifying “Pharmaceutical Sales Reps,” ensuring the noun-modifying clause links the reps to their salaries without disrupting sentence structure.
Incorrect Usage
"Pharmaceutical Sales Reps who's salaries exceed or meet $100,000 a year typically have strong interpersonal skills in addition to relevant coursework and experience in sales, psychology, or life sciences."
This version misuses “who’s” (a contraction of “who is” or “who has”) instead of the possessive “whose,” breaking the noun-modifying clause and creating both grammatical and semantic inconsistency.
Correct Usage
"If you are a self-motivated individual who is proficient and knowledgeable, friendly and goal-oriented, trustworthy and kind, the pharmaceutical industry may be worth exploring."
This sentence correctly uses the relative pronoun “who is” to introduce a restrictive clause that directly modifies the noun “individual.” Each paired adjective describes qualities of that individual, and the clause is properly integrated without breaking sentence structure.
Incorrect Usage
"If you are a self-motivated individual whose proficient and knowledgeable, friendly and goal-oriented, trustworthy and kind, the pharmaceutical industry may be worth exploring."
This version misuses the possessive pronoun “whose,” which expects to show possession of a noun, not introduce a descriptive clause. Additionally, it omits the linking verb “is,” leaving the modifier phrase grammatically incomplete and failing to form a proper noun-modifying clause.

Essential Modifier Rules

  • Use who only for human antecedents; use that or which for animals or objects.
  • Use whose as the possessive form of who only for people; rephrase or use “of which” for non-human possession.
  • Avoid confusing who’s (contraction of “who is” or “who has”) with whose (possessive pronoun).
  • Use that for restrictive clauses modifying people or things (no commas).
  • Use which for non-restrictive clauses modifying things or ideas (set off with commas).
  • Use what only in free relative clauses meaning “the thing that…,” never immediately after another noun.

Colloquialisms to Avoid:

  1. ❌ Incorrect: "She's the one that got away."
    ✅ Correct: "She's the one who got away."

    Note: "Who" should be used when referring to people. While "that" is common in speech, it is technically reserved for things or groups—not individuals.

  2. ❌ Incorrect: "It's not what you know; it's who you know that matters the most."
    ✅ Correct: "It's not what you know; it's who you know who matters the most."

    Note: In formal grammar, "who" is the appropriate relative pronoun for people. "That" is acceptable in casual conversation, but for clarity and correctness, use "who" when referring to individuals.

Pro Tip: Some words—such as who, whom, which, and what—can serve as either interrogative pronouns or relative pronouns, depending on how they function in a sentence. As interrogative pronouns, they initiate a direct or indirect question and stand in for the unknown element being asked about—Who is leading the meeting? or Whom did they recommend? In these cases, they operate as part of the question’s core grammatical structure. By contrast, as relative pronouns, these same words introduce dependent clauses that add information about a noun—The colleague who is leading the meeting... or The person whom they recommended... The key distinction lies not in the word itself but in its syntactic purpose: whether it’s launching a question or linking descriptive detail within a sentence.

✅ Correct: "Who on the planning committee will present the final proposal?"

❌ Incorrect: "Whom on the planning committee will present the final proposal?"

"Who" is the subject of the verb "will present." You would rephrase the sentence as: "He will present the final proposal." Since you'd use "he" (a subject pronoun), "who" fits. On the other hand, "Whom" is an object pronoun, but the sentence requires a subject pronoun.

How do we know? Well, just check with substitution: You wouldn’t say "Him will present." You’d say "He will present," confirming the correct form is "who.

✅ Correct: "Whom did the hiring manager select for the leadership role?"

❌ Incorrect: "Who did the hiring manager select for the leadership role?"

Why it's correct:
The subject of the verb "did select" is "the hiring manager," and the missing word is the object of the action. Rephrased: "The hiring manager selected him." Since you'd use "him" (an object pronoun), "whom" is correct. So, that makes the other option incorrect. "Who" in that example is a subject pronoun, but the word is functioning as the object of the verb "select." So, how do you remember when to use "who" or "whom" in this case? Well, all you do is check with substitution: You wouldn’t say "The hiring manager selected he." You’d say "The hiring manager selected him," so once again "whom" is correct.

Critical Rule: Emphasizing a Prior Event

In Standard English, the participial phrase “having been” will always point out a sequence or prior state. It is often found in formal and academic writing, and it must agree with its subject. It is typically followed by a verb in the past participle form. This is especially important in professional communications where Standard English and fluency are expected.

✅ Correct: "Having been codified by 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f), veterans may gain re-entry into the workforce through the Veteran's Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA) if they qualify for a non-competitive appointment."

In some contexts, "having been” may appear too formal and distant; however, it is completely appropriate if it introduces extra emphasis on timing, which may be necessary here.

❌ Incorrect: "Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f), veterans may gain re-entry into the workforce through the Veteran's Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA) having been eligible for a non-competitive appointment."

This sentence breaks two key rules:

  • Misaligned modifier: “Having been eligible” incorrectly modifies “Veteran’s Employment Opportunity Act,” rather than the veterans themselves.
  • Unnecessary tense layering: The phrase adds complexity without clarifying a time sequence; the word “eligible” already implies a prior condition.

🔁 Better: "Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f), veterans who are eligible for a non-competitive appointment may gain re-entry into the workforce through the Veterans' Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA)."

Why This Matters Beyond the SAT®

Proper sentence construction isn’t just cosmetic—it affects regulatory interpretation. In this next case, replacing “that includes” with “which includes” corrects a misused modifier and clarifies what the FDA does not regulate. A misplaced relative clause can muddy the boundaries between federal authority and clinical judgment, resulting in real-world consequences.

Legal Clarity in Medical Policies

❌ Incorrect: "The FDA regulates drug approval and labeling, but does not interfere with the practice of medicine, that includes off-label prescribing by licensed physicians."

✅ Correct: "The FDA regulates drug approval and labeling, but does not interfere with the practice of medicine, which includes off-label prescribing by licensed physicians."

Real-World Application: Clear Intent & Purpose in Communication

In legal, technical, and governmental writing, misplaced modifiers and vague clauses can distort intent, void agreements, or even endanger lives. These aren’t hypotheticals—they’re documented loopholes stemming from sentence construction errors that the SAT® tests.

Strategic Ambiguity
(Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 2001)

The Supreme Court's Buckman decision created a regulatory blind spot by using dangerously vague language about off-label drug use. While properly ruling that federal law preempts state "fraud-on-the-FDA" claims, the Court's unnecessary commentary about physician prescribing authority became a blueprint for pharmaceutical companies to circumvent marketing restrictions.

Problematic Language: "Off-label use is generally accepted medical practice... physicians may prescribe drugs and devices for off-label uses" (531 U.S. at 350).

Revised for Clarity: "Physicians' authority to prescribe off-label does not constitute permission for manufacturers to promote off-label uses, nor does it reduce the FDA's exclusive regulatory authority over drug marketing."

How Ambiguity Fueled Crisis:

The Court's language contained three critical flaws: First, describing off-label use as "generally accepted" implied regulatory endorsement, rather than a clinical reality. Second, focusing solely on physician authority ignored how manufacturers could exploit this discretion. Third, the passive construction avoided specifying who bears responsibility for preventing misuse.

Pharmaceutical companies transformed this ambiguity into a marketing strategy. They funded research and education initiatives that appeared to respect physician autonomy while systematically encouraging off-label opioid use. When challenged, manufacturers cited Buckman's language to claim they were merely responding to legitimate medical demand, rather than creating it.

This linguistic loophole became particularly devastating with fentanyl products, where aggressive off-label promotion for chronic pain directly contradicted the FDA's narrow approval for cancer pain. A more precisely worded opinion could have prevented thousands of overdose deaths by closing this interpretive gap between clinical practice and commercial promotion.

Fentanyl-Related Overdose Deaths

  • 📊 As of January 2025, the CDC projected approximately 82,138 drug overdose deaths.
  • ⚠️ While this reflects a ~26% decline from the previous year, fentanyl remains the leading cause of drug-related fatalities in the U.S.
  • 💊 Over 70,000 deaths in 2023 alone involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids.
  • 📉 Nearly 90% of recent opioid overdose deaths are linked to fentanyl.
  • 📅 Since 2018, fentanyl has contributed to the deaths of over 250,000 Americans.

CDC Overdose Data Addiction Group 2025 Report

Precision & Concision

⚠️ Problematic: "Men often being shamed for seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction caused by beta blockers often face unnecessary barriers."

✓ Effective: "Men experiencing beta blocker–induced erectile dysfunction frequently encounter both stigma and systemic barriers when seeking treatment."

Key Improvements: The original version suffers from three critical flaws: the double use of "often" creates redundancy, the passive construction ("being shamed") disrupts sentence flow, and the causal relationship between beta blockers and ED is buried. The revised version establishes clear causality with "beta blocker–induced," uses active voice ("encounter"), and separates the distinct concepts of social stigma ("stigma") and institutional obstacles ("systemic barriers") for greater precision. This level of syntactic clarity reflects the gold standard for academic and professional writing.

Pharmaceutical Example:
Pfizer's 2023 press release for Nurtec ODT initially stated: "This treatment could potentially benefit many migraine sufferers." The final version clarified: "In clinical trials, 59% of patients achieved pain freedom within 2 hours." The revision replaced hedging language ("could potentially") with trial data, avoiding stock market speculation, while meeting FDA communication guidelines.

Legal Example:
Ambiguity in United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) Mental Health Treatment Policy


Consider this clause from a memorandum on inmate welfare:

"Correctional facilities shall provide adequate mental health care to inmates demonstrating severe distress."

The exact wording of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

📜 Constitutional Interpretation (2024):

In Coleman v. Newsom, a Circuit Court ruling now requires correctional facilities, such as those operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to actively screen for and treat observable psychological conditions. The ruling does not define "adequate," but the decision emphasizes that the standard of care must meet Eighth Amendment standards under Estelle v. Gamble (1976), which prohibits "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." The decision rejects arguments that budget constraints are a valid justification to subpar care. Federal correctional facilities have since acknowledged that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) is subject to the same constitutional standards set by Estelle v. Gamble (1976), and the DOJ’s 2024 Suicide Prevention Memorandum reaffirms this requirement.

⚖️ Problematic Implementation:

Several state prison systems have interpreted phrases like "adequate treatment" to be contingent on measurable factors such as the individual first having "observable psychological conditions" or "demonstrating severe distress." These interpretations have been applied in ways that required overt acts of self-harm before mental health intervention, contrary to psychiatric standards. Colette Peters, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, acknowledged the challenges that the federal prison system has been having, and cited many FBOP preventative initiatives in support of its proactive approach; however, her official statement underscores just how difficult it is to meet constitutional standards. In her testimony to the U.S. Senate, during the 2024 hearing, she mentioned that nearly 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States, on any given day of the week, and of those in federal custody, nearly 38% have been identified as having serious mental health concerns or substance use disorders—factors that significantly increase the risk of fatal harm without timely intervention.

While not the direct subject of litigation, ambiguity and improper word choice and/or placement in DOJ written policies and protocols arguably contribute to the difficulties the FBOP has been facing, especially as it pertains to providing "adequate" inmate care. The challenges faced by these institutions have been so severe, despite initiatives such as those taken by the FBOP, that investigations and court filings have been ongoing. Reports disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such as those disclosed by the Department of Justice, highlight considerable concerns about whether the language issued in federal guidance provides sufficiently clear clinical thresholds for phrases like "severe distress," and "observable psychological conditions."

Policy Ramifications: When policies use vague language like "demonstrating severe distress" or "observable psychological conditions," they shift the burden of proof onto inmates. A person must display symptoms so obvious that others take notice—often too late for preventative care or emergency intervention. Similarly, terms like "adequate" remain undefined; while the Supreme Court in Estelle v. Gamble (1976) affirmed that incarcerated individuals have a constitutional right to adequate medical treatment, it did not set clear criteria for what that care entails. These issues mirror concerns raised in Plata v. Newsom (2001–2023), where people in California’s prisons experienced unconstitutional delays in care—delays often worsened by unclear language in mental health protocols.

Still Not Convinced?

The College Board Digital SAT isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s preparation for when your words shape public policy or face courtroom scrutiny. Take the 2024 DOJ memo: drafted in private, now dissected by courts and the press. One vague phrase—“demonstrating severe distress”—sparked litigation over prison mental health care. Or the fentanyl crisis, where passive clauses like “should be considered” let pharmaceutical companies dodge accountability. These aren’t just words—they’re choices that follow you, defining your legacy.

The SAT® “Standard English Conventions” questions may seem foreign and dry, but the skills that need to be applied to answer them correctly reflect real-world stakes. A misplaced modifier in a sentencing memo can become a viral soundbite. A vague contract clause might resurface years later in a Supreme Court dissent. Precision isn’t just about earning points; it’s about protecting what you’ve built—your work, your credibility, and your reputation—when it matters most!

SAT® Statistics

  • Approximately 25% of Standard English Conventions questions on the SAT test modifiers, including lists, clauses, and comma usage.
  • A 2023 National Association of Colleges and Employers report found that 89% of employers prioritize written communication skills in hires.
  • According to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, all U.S. jurisdictions require a written component—such as essays or performance tests—on the bar exam, making strong writing skills, like those tested on the SAT, essential for aspiring attorneys.

Practice Question 1

The project manager, ________ led the training, received an award.

Which option completes the text and conforms to Standard English conventions?

A which
B whom
C who
D that

Practice Question 2

______ among the executives is responsible for the quarterly report?

Which option completes the text and conforms to Standard English conventions?

A Which
B Who
C Whom
D What

Practice Question 3

______ among the executives did the board recognize for outstanding organizational and management skills?

Which option completes the text and conforms to Standard English conventions?

A Which
B Who
C Whom
D What

High SAT Scores: A Catalyst for Your Next Opportunity

Whether you’ve built expertise on the job or picked up skills outside the classroom, a strong SAT® score isn’t just a number—it’s proof of your critical-thinking and communication abilities. Employers and colleges alike see high results as evidence you can master challenging material and perform under pressure.

You don’t need a traditional diploma to prove you belong. By mastering core grammar and reasoning skills—like understanding how modifiers influence communication—you can qualify for professional certifications or enroll in community college programs. Combining your hands-on experience with a standout SAT score can open doors you once thought were closed.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This website, its application(s), and its educational material may provide commentary on social trends and/or excerpts from documents, which may include but are not limited to legal texts, official documents, news releases, and public service announcements. These excerpts may have been adapted for linguistic cohesiveness and didactic efficacy. Any information provided is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to reference or interpret any law or regulation, legal right or historical event, whether substantive or procedural. Nor does it impose any limitation on otherwise lawful activities, professional requirements or privileges, or litigation prerogatives. Contranorm Media & Production makes no claim of association or affiliation, whether explicit or implied, with any government agency, private commercial entity, or academic institution. All cited references are presented solely for critical and linguistic analysis, without warranty or claim of factual accuracy or historical relevancy.

Contranorm Media & Production © | SAT Class Notes