Plan B Forum

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... nyt-region

Score
You took 11 tries to complete the quiz.

Actually it took me 10, but fat fingers on a touch screen missed by a couple of millimeters on one answer. The grammar editor at NYT collects examples of errors which creep into print: your job is to identify the offending word.

Eighteen for me, which still puts me above the median for NYTimes readers (or test-takers).

-"BB"-

What a bunch of nit-picky siliness...

You took 13 tries to complete the quiz.

Over all, you did better than 88 percent of Times readers. The median score on this quiz is 19.

The only reason I did that well is because I was usually able to figure out what the most popular choice among the anal retentive would be...

LJ - whom are you calling anally retentive?

12 for me... and what ExKA said.....

16 tries, and what do I get?
Another day older and deeper in debt...



(Actually, it should've been 14 because one of the errors--which took me 3 tries to identify--really could've been corrected in two different ways.)

Econoline wrote: (Actually, it should've been 14 because one of the errors--which took me 3 tries to identify--really could've been corrected in two different ways.)[/size]

Question #6, right?

Actually, no; it was #4 (though I did need 2 tries for #6).

I maintain that #4 could have been corrected not only by doing what they said (replacing 2 words in the final sentence), but also by simply removing the word "can" from the 2 places it occurs in the final sentence. This would not only have kept the basic meaning of the sentence substantially unchanged, it would also have preserved the intended "faux-Biblical" phrasing of that sentence.

You took 12 tries to complete the quiz.

Over all, you did better than 92 percent of Times readers. The median score on this quiz is 19.

I'm good with that.

Econoline wrote:Actually, no; it was #4 (though I did need 2 tries for #6).

I maintain that #4 could have been corrected not only by doing what they said (replacing 2 words in the final sentence), but also by simply removing the word "can" from the 2 places it occurs in the final sentence. This would not only have kept the basic meaning of the sentence substantially unchanged, it would also have preserved the intended "faux-Biblical" phrasing of that sentence.

I see what you mean. Yours is a better answer for the reason given above. However, in the area of fact, since when has the government been better at giving than at taking away?

Grammer?
i don't need no steenkin' grammer.

ex-khobar Andy wrote:LJ - whom are you calling anally retentive?

As Herb Caen wrote; "I'd rather be anally retentive than whatever the opposite is."


yrs,
rubato

oldr_n_wsr wrote:Grammer?
i don't need no steenkin' grammer.

Or spelling, even, also too.

dat two