Sentence Correction

"By next month" used together with "for two years" indicates something that will be completed in the future, so future perfect "will have been" is the correct tense.
"Will be" [(A), (C)] means she will be mayor for two years beginning in the future.
Moreover, "Mayor" [(A), (B)] is incorrectly capitalized: it is not used as a title/name here (like "Mayor Jones"). "Could have been" (E) changes the meaning.

To agree with the present-tense predicate "claims," the dependent clause must also be present-tense "make," not "made" (A).
"Could be" (B) and "are" (C) alter the sentence meaning. "Make of" (D) is not a valid construction in this sentence structure, makes no sense, and means nothing.

With conditional-subjunctive constructions, never add the subjunctive auxiliary verb (would/could/would have/could have) to the conditional (If) half [(A), (C), (E)]; it is only used in the subjunctive half.
It is never correct to substitute the preposition "of" for the auxiliary verb "have" [(C), (D)].

Conditional-subjunctive ("If...then") constructions set in the past use past perfect ("If I had known") for the conditional, and present perfect ("I would have signed up") for the subjunctive, because "If" comes earlier and "then" later.
Adding the subjunctive "would"/"could" to the conditional as well (B) is incorrect.
Substituting the preposition "of" for the auxiliary verb "have" (C) is always incorrect. "Had been/could have been told" [(C), (D)] differs in meaning from "had known."

The present perfect intransitive "to lie" is "have lain," not "have lay" (A), "have laid" (B), or "had laid" (D), which latter two are only transitive, e.g. "She has laid the gloves on the bureau every day" or "I saw a pair of gloves she had laid on the bureau."
The conditional "would lie" (C) is only grammatical with a conditional, e.g. "...would lie on the bureau all week unless you moved them," also conveying a different meaning.

Since this entire conditional-subjunctive sentence construction is in the past, the correct conditional form is past perfect "If I had had" rather than present perfect "if I had" [(A), (B), (C)] with the present perfect subjunctive "I would have."
The correct punctuation between conditional "if" and subjunctive "would" parts is always a comma, never a semicolon [(B), (D)] or a dash (C).

The correct preposition with verbs expressing movement or placement is "into," not "in" [(A), (B), (C), (E)], a common error.
We place something into a container, not in it; things move into the air, not in it.
"In" denotes something is already there rather than moving/being moved there.

"Schoolroom" is one word, not two [(A), (D)]. A semicolon separates independent clauses or phrases containing internal commas, but is incorrect between a phrase and a clause [(C), (D)].
A comma, not a dash (E), is used between the introductory prepositional phrase and the independent clause it modifies.

"Someone" is one word, not two [(B), (C)]. "There is a person that" (D) differs semantically and grammatically, meaning someone exists who gives the school gerbils rather than someone gives the school gerbils; also, "who" is preferable over "that" when referring to people.
The meaning is changed by past tense "gave" (E); i.e. an individual/someone gave the school gerbils every year but no longer does, vs. someone still gives the school gerbils every year.

The adverb "magnificently" modifies the verb "rises" and reads more appropriately and concisely than the phrase "in a magnificent way."
"Way above" [(B), (C)] is slangy and does not express the intended meaning. If it did, "far above" would be more correct.
Passive-voice "is raised" (E) connotes a different meaning (i.e. is set higher) than active-voice "rises" (i.e. appears) in this sentence.

When comparing two things, the comparative "-er" is used rather than the superlative "-est," which is only used when comparing more than two things.
The adverb "than" is used with the comparative, not the conjunction "then" (B), which indicates time sequence (e.g. "and then..."), cause and effect (e.g. "If...,then..."). Adding "are" (D) is unnecessary.

To affect means to influence. This meaning, and hence this spelling, apply here. To effect [(A), (B)] means to cause, initiate, create, implement, or accomplish.
"Stories" (B) is plural, not possessive. "Affect" (C) goes with a plural, not singular, subject. "Plots" (E) is plural, not singular.

When used as a noun rather than a name (proper noun), "grandmother" is not capitalized.
Used either way, it is still one word, not two (E); the same is true of "foodstuffs" (B).

"Admired" is an acceptable word in writing for the desired meaning, whereas "dug" (A) is slang.
"Thought about (B), "thought of" (C), and "gazed at" (E) do not convey the same meaning at all.

"Scram" is a slang word meaning "leave," a more acceptable choice when writing (excepting intentional slang like Mark Twain used in dialogue, narrative, etc.).
"Could" (D) means they can leave, whereas "had better" and "should" means they ought to leave. "Get out" (E), similarly to "scram," is less acceptable than "leave."

The correct word choice for this sentence is "disinterested," meaning not personally involved or invested and (presumably) impartial.
"Uninterested" means literally not interested, i.e. oblivious or not caring. In this context, they would not pick an "interested" party to judge a contest, and the exclamation mark (B) is inappropriate punctuation. "An" (E) is incorrect preceding a consonant.

"Then" is an adverb indicating time or sequence here. "Than" [(A), (E)] is a conjunction indicating comparison, e.g. "He is taller than I am" or "We would rather go now than later." When listing three sequential steps as in this sentence, the comma after the first and second steps is correct punctuation; a colon (B) or hyphen [(C), (E)] is incorrect.

No punctuation should be placed between "means" and "to" here.
Hence a comma [(B), (E)] or dash (D) is incorrect. A nonrestrictive relative clause introduces additional information, requiring a comma and "which"-not "that" [(C), (D), and (E)]. "That" is used without a comma and only with a restrictive relative clause, i.e. one that is necessary to understand the meaning of the noun it modifies.

With an indirect object, the transitive verb and preposition should be a unit, i.e. "led to" here, like "take from," "give to," etc., uninterrupted by the modifying adverb "eventually." "Who" (E) only applies to people, not inanimate objects like books.

"Last week" dictates simple past tense "were." Present perfect "have been" (A) refers to the status now of something already accomplished in the past-e.g. "have been cataloged since last week." Subjunctive present perfect "would have been" (B) is never used in a conditional "If" clause/phrase, only as its complement ("If..., then they would...").
Singular "was" (C) disagrees with plural "books." Past perfect "had been" (E) would require "why hadn't they been.../weren't they...?" to agree.

A. It is idiomatic to say in getting x... to do y. in getting people... in buying is not idiomatic. Choice (A) is therefore, incorrect.
B. CORRECT. The correct idiom is used.
C. Once is misplaced: it is not placed before the verb it is modifying. Once thought is the correct construction.
D. German luxury brands is plural. Therefore, the use of has creates a Noun-Verb disagreement and is incorrect.
E. has creates a noun-verb disagreement. Moreover, in getting x... to do y is idiomatic.

A. Comparison error. Requires more than they steal.... to complete the comparison. Also the pronoun them is ambiguous. It can refer to Hondas, Toyotas, or other models.
B. Takes care of comparison error, but the pronoun error still stands.
C. CORRECT. Dummy verb do takes care of comparison error. Pronoun error stands corrected. Also, the phrase dismantle the cars is better than chop the cars.
D. While pronoun ambiguity is corrected, comparison is incomplete.
E. Comparison is incomplete. Pronoun them is ambiguous. Dismantle up is incorrect.

A. The subject for the verb nudged is Hopes. The correct verb is have nudged..... to higher X is required because financial markets are measured in index levels.
B. CORRECT. have nudged..... is the correct verb for Hopes. to higher levels is required.
C. has nudged is incorrect.
D. Original sentence has the present perfect auxilliary has...... It is required in the sentence.
E. Original sentence has the present perfect auxilliary has...... It is required in the sentence. to higher X is required because financial markets are measured in index levels.

A. The two art forms are not complete contrasts. Hence use of unlike is incorrect. This is a mere difference, hence while should be used. Also the correct part of the sentence uses Ancient Roman art depicted…so the first part should also be parallely constructed.
B. The sentence is cumbersome because of the repetitive use of the comma. Also lacks parallel construction.
C. While.... takes care of the difference highlighted in the sentence. The original sentence talks of both veneration…and development…as predicates of the verb saw; here developed is constructed in parallel with saw – thus changing the intent of the sentence.
D. Correct. Use of while is required. Venerated..... and developed.... are parallely constructed and conform to depicted…
E. Use of unlike..... is incorrect. Greek Art did not venerate the development of.....

B is the right answer...OFF - is used in case of separation.
ON - is used in case of not separation the things must be in a contact.
So above option 'B'is correct answer due to hair contact.

After no sooner we use either.
Did + Present Tense (V1) or Had + Vs

The sentence is correct

In the place of has used, use has been used.

The sentence is correct.

The sentence is correct.