Sentence Control and Rhetorical Revision Worksheet — Grade 10

• Uses the requested English construction accurately with the intended meaning.
• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.

One possible response: The original joins two independent clauses with only a comma. Revision: The club should record equipment loans so members can find tools more easily.

• Uses the requested English construction accurately with the intended meaning.
• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.

One possible response: The dependent clause cannot stand as a complete sentence here. Revision: Two members searched for a camera because no return time was recorded.

• Uses the requested English construction accurately with the intended meaning.
• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.

One possible response: Members should enter a name, state a return time and check the item on return. The coordinated actions now use matching base-form verbs instead of mixing a base verb with an -ing form.

• Uses the requested English construction accurately with the intended meaning.
• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.

One possible response: The board may be seen by visitors, so private contact information should not be displayed. The explicit subject names the intended object instead of leaving the reader to choose among nearby nouns.

• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.
• Distinguishes reported evidence, an inference and an unverified possibility.
• Preserves the source meaning, qualifications and speaker attribution.

One possible response: The board could make loans easier to track, but it still needs regular checking.

• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.
• Uses the requested English construction accurately with the intended meaning.
• Preserves the source meaning, qualifications and speaker attribution.
• Answers every requested part in connected, appropriately punctuated English.

One possible response: The club should record equipment loans so members can find tools more easily. Two members searched for a camera because no return time was recorded. Members should enter a name, state a return time and check the item on return. The board could make loans easier to track, but it still needs regular checking. The board may be seen by visitors, so private contact information should not be displayed. The proposal should be evaluated with the comparison or follow-up described in the original draft.

• Uses the requested English construction accurately with the intended meaning.
• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.
• Accepts a different interpretation when supported by the supplied text and reasoning.

One possible response: Could staff consider the proposed trial and review its results? The request is less forceful than a guarantee but still identifies an action and evaluation.

• Shows the revised language and explains its effect on meaning, coherence or audience.
• Explains specific material details rather than merely naming a device or repeating a claim.
• Accepts a different interpretation when supported by the supplied text and reasoning.

One possible response: Replacing “The board would make everything efficient and solve all our problems.” with “The board could make loans easier to track, but it still needs regular checking.” makes the evidence scope clearer. Replacing “It” with the noun phrase in “The board may be seen by visitors, so private contact information should not be displayed.” prevents an unclear reference. Other text-based priorities are acceptable.