In-Depth: Common Errors in Sentence Correction

CLAT Application & Relevance

Importance: Medium (Indirect). While CLAT explicitly states it tests "comprehension and language skills" rather than isolated grammar rules, a strong understanding of common sentence errors is vital. Well-written legal and analytical passages are grammatically correct. Your ability to comprehend complex arguments or intricate details relies on implicitly recognizing and correctly interpreting grammatically sound sentences. Identifying a subtle error (even if not asked to correct it) can sometimes be a clue in understanding why a particular argument in a passage might be flawed or ambiguous.

How it's tested: Implicitly, as a foundational skill for accurate reading and interpretation. Occasionally, a passage might present a flawed argument or statement that subtly relies on a grammatical error, requiring your critical analysis to identify the flaw.

Section 1: Core Concepts & Categories of Errors

Sentence correction focuses on identifying and rectifying grammatical, logical, and stylistic errors to make sentences clear, concise, and grammatically sound.

Categories of Common Errors (and their CLAT Relevance)

1. Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA): (Already covered in detail). Ensures singular subjects take singular verbs and plural subjects take plural verbs.
Relevance: Misunderstanding SVA can lead to misinterpreting who or what is performing an action, critical in legal texts.
2. Tenses: (Already covered in detail). Ensures correct sequencing and timing of actions.
Relevance: Incorrect tense usage can confuse timelines of events or the continuity of actions in a passage.
3. Modifiers (Misplaced/Dangling): (Already covered in detail). Ensures descriptive phrases correctly refer to the intended noun/verb.
Relevance: Misplaced modifiers create ambiguity and logical absurdity, making it hard to grasp precise meaning.
4. Parallelism (Parallel Structure): Ensures that items in a list or series, or parts of a comparison, are expressed in the same grammatical form (e.g., all nouns, all verbs, all gerunds).
Example of error: "The lawyer was known for his eloquence, his integrity, and how well he argued." (Mixes noun, noun, and clause).
Correct: "The lawyer was known for his eloquence, his integrity, and his argumentative skill."
5. Pronoun Errors (Agreement & Case): Ensures pronouns (he, she, it, they, him, her, them, which, that, who, whom) correctly refer to their antecedents in number, gender, and case (subject vs. object).
Example of error: "Each of the judges presented their own views." (Each is singular, their is plural).
Correct: "Each of the judges presented his or her own views."
6. Redundancy / Wordiness: Using more words than necessary to convey meaning.
Example of error: "The new legal precedent reiterated again its importance." (Reiterate means to state again).
Correct: "The new legal precedent reiterated its importance."
7. Faulty Comparisons: Comparing unlike things or making illogical comparisons.
Example of error: "The judgment in this case is harsher than any other verdict." (This implies the judgment itself is a verdict, which it is not).
Correct: "The judgment in this case is harsher than that of any other verdict." OR "The judgment in this case is harsher than any other verdict delivered." (Comparing judgment to judgment).
8. Diction (Word Choice): Using words incorrectly based on their precise meaning or connotation.
Example of error: "The lawyer received an amiable sum for her work." (Amiable means friendly, not large).
Correct: "The lawyer received a sizable sum for her work."

Section 2: Solved CLAT-Style Examples (Contextual Application)

Example 1: Parallelism and Redundancy in a Passage

Passage Excerpt: "A successful advocate must possess qualities such as clear articulation, a profound understanding of law, and also be able to persuade. Furthermore, the final conclusion reached in a case should always be fair and just and equitable."

Question: "Identify and explain any common sentence errors in the passage that affect its precision and flow."

Detailed Explanation:
1. Error 1: Parallelism in the first sentence.
Original: "clear articulation, a profound understanding of law, and also be able to persuade."
The list mixes nouns ("articulation", "understanding") with a verb phrase ("be able to persuade").
Correction (for clarity - not asked by CLAT): "clear articulation, a profound understanding of law, and persuasive ability." (All are nouns now).
Impact: Breaks the rhythmic flow and grammatical balance, making the sentence less elegant and harder to process quickly.
2. Error 2: Redundancy in the second sentence.
Original: "The final conclusion reached in a case should always be fair and just and equitable."
"Fair," "just," and "equitable" are near synonyms. Using all three consecutively is redundant. Also, "final conclusion" is often redundant as a conclusion is typically final.
Correction: "The conclusion reached in a case should always be fair and just."
Impact: Wordiness slows down reading and dilutes the impact of the statement. Precision is lost when too many similar words are used without distinct nuances.
Relevance to CLAT: Recognizing such errors hones your ability to read for precision and clarity, which is paramount when analyzing legal documents or complex arguments where every word matters.

Example 2: Pronoun Agreement and Faulty Comparison

Passage Excerpt: "Each of the lawyers expressed their concern about the new policy. The public's response to this policy is more negative than the previous legislation."

Question: "Identify and explain the errors related to pronoun agreement and faulty comparison in the passage."

Detailed Explanation:
1. Error 1: Pronoun Agreement.
Original: "Each of the lawyers expressed their concern..."
The subject "Each" is singular. Therefore, the possessive pronoun referring to "Each" must also be singular. "Their" is plural.
Correction: "Each of the lawyers expressed his or her concern..." (or 'his/her' for brevity, or rephrase to "All the lawyers expressed their concern").
Impact: Incorrect pronoun agreement leads to grammatical inaccuracy and can confuse the reader about the number of individuals involved.
2. Error 2: Faulty Comparison.
Original: "The public's response to this policy is more negative than the previous legislation."
This sentence compares "the public's response to this policy" (a response) with "the previous legislation" (a law). You must compare like with like.
Correction: "The public's response to this policy is more negative than that to the previous legislation." OR "...more negative than the response to the previous legislation."
Impact: A faulty comparison creates an illogical statement, making it unclear exactly what is being compared, which could significantly affect argument analysis.
Relevance to CLAT: These errors, if present in actual CLAT passages, would challenge your deep comprehension. Your training in grammar allows you to read past such issues and extract the *intended* logical meaning.