Answer: b

Explanation:
Most style guides discourage the use of Xmas, probably because many people find it offensive.

In fact, Xmas is a variation on Christmas that has deep roots. From Wikipedia:

 Early use of “Xmas” includes Bernard Ward’s History of St. Edmund’s college, Old Hall (originally published circa 1755).^[9] An earlier version, “X’temmas”, dates to 1551.^[9] Around 1100 the term was written as “Xp̄es mæsse” in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.^[2] ”Xmas” is found in a letter from George Woodward in 1753.^[10] Lord Byron used the term in 1811,^[11] as did Samuel Coleridge (1801)^[5] and Lewis Carroll (1864).^[11]

Many Christians object to Xmas because they believe it removes Christ’s name from the word. However,  According to the OED, the use of the letter X to refer to Christ goes back to 1485.

In any case, however, let’s maintain the peace this season by refraining from using Xmas.

****

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Answer: a.

Explanation:
The first meaning of uninterested is lacking interest; the first meaning of disinterested is impartial or unbiased. If you were framed for a crime, you would want a disinterested jury that would weigh the facts impartially — definitely not an uninterested one that might not pay much attention to the evidence.

Some dictionaries include the meaning of lacking interest for disinterested. In fact, their meanings have shifted back and forth over the last couple of centuries. However, when a distinction can be made that clarifies meaning, it’s usually better to go with that choice.

Nevertheless, a quick Google finds a lot of examples of people using “disinterested” to mean “uninterested.” There are those who fear that the distinction between the two words is disappearing. 

On Motivated Grammar, Gabe Doyle (@MGrammar) did some research into that question. Here’s how he describes the current situation:

 Uninterested is now restricted to an “unconcerned” meaning. Disinterested covers impartiality, but it also can take the “uninterested” meaning, often indicating specifically that interest has been lost. Because many people object to this sense of disinterested, you may want to avoid it if you’re uninterested in a fight. Will the distinction ever fully emerge, and the overlap be lost? Would that this desk were a time desk…

 
Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Answer: 1.

Explanation:
“To reduce” is what is known as an infinitive. The old rule is that you don’t split infinitives, but even when that was the rule, there were exceptions. Quite often, refusing to split an infinitive results in an awkward sentence. Even worse, keeping your infinitives glued together can also make your meaning unclear.

In this case, if we place “gradually” at the end of the sentence, it makes it seem as if reducing the number of connections gradually is what reduces vulnerability. But the gradual nature of the reduction has nothing to do with the purpose — it’s just the manner in which the action is being performed. Sentence #1 is more apt to be understood properly: The government is reducing Internet connections to reduce vulnerability but will do so in a gradual manner.

Here’s Oxford Dictionaries on the (non-)issue of split infinitives:

What are split infinitives? 

What’s wrong with split infinitives?

You see? Sometimes infinitives should stick together; sometimes it’s better to split them up. Make the sensible choice and don’t let outdated rules trip you up. If your English teacher taught you otherwise … well, your English teacher was wrong.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Answer: Either.

Explanation:

The old rule was that “healthy” meant “in good health” and “healthful” meant “promoting good health.” So a person could be healthy but the best a food could hope for was “healthful.” Now though, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “healthy” can be used as a synonym for “healthful.”

But there’s a price to pay: Some sticklers in the audience are bound to think your standards are too loosey-goosey. If your readers are likely to be old-school grammarians—and you’re not in a feather-ruffling mood— you can’t go wrong with “healthful.”  No, you can’t go wrong, exactly. Although non-stickler readers are apt to think you’re a bit of a fuddy-duddy. So you make your choice and you take your chances.

June Cassagrandes discusses the problem:

I think most people would say that “healthy diet” is more popular and more natural-sounding than “healthful diet.” So why does the L.A. Times use “healthful” and, just as interestingly, why do I often change “healthy” to “healthful” when I’m copy editing marketing pieces?

It’s because, in language, you have to pick your battles. And, when you do so, you have to take into account your reader and the context in which you’re writing. Readers who believe “healthful” can’t mean “healthy” notice what they believe to be an error. And errors, real or perceived, are distracting. So you, like the L.A. Times, may want to make the safe choice by opting for “healthful.”

Just be aware that you can’t please all the readers, all the time. I think I’m going to stick with “healthy.” A little benign feather-ruffling keeps the work day lively.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Explanation:

According to Merriam-Webster, snuck arose in the late 1800s in America and has, at least in the US, become as acceptable as sneaked. Opinions differ, however. AP style calls for sneaked, which is the original and standard past and past participle form for the verb sneak.

I’m Canadian, which may explain why I was surprised to find that some other people were surprised to see sneaked used instead of snuck. Danny Sullivan wrote about his investigation:

Driving back from the airport this weekend after our vacation, I put on an audio CD for the kids, one of the Horrid Henry stories. In part of the story, he was said to have “sneaked” into a room. Sneaked? Surely he “snuck” into the room, I thought. But then I lost confidence. Have I been saying “snuck” all these years by mistake?

To reassure myself, I quickly tried to think of other irregular verbs ending in -eak where I would do this. I couldn’t think of any. Instead, I thought of examples where I don’t do this. For example, I wouldn’t say:

• cruck rather than creaked
• fruck rather than freaked
• wruck rather than wreaked

It’s a really interesting post. Sullivan researches various authorities and also provides a handy refresher on past verb tenses.

That said, snuck sounds jocular and/or rural to me. The verb form it brings to my mind is drug, as the past form of drag, as in I drug myself out of bed and logged into Facebook. As far as I know, drug remains non-standard. But stay tuned…

In the meantime, let’s see if we can’t get fruck going as a past form for freaked. Here’s my contribution: I nearly fruck out when I saw Merriam-Webster said snuck was as acceptable as sneaked.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Answer: The “very” before “unique” needs to be removed.

Explanation:
Here’s the formal argument: Something that’s unique is one of a kind — there are no degrees of uniqueness possible.

Here’s how Paul Brians explains it:

“Unique” singles out one of a kind. That “un” at the beginning is a form of “one.” A thing is unique (the only one of its kind) or it is not. Something may be almost unique (there are very few like it), but nothing is “very unique.”

Opinions to the contrary exist.

Seth Golub, for example offers the argument that there’s nothing wrong with “very unique.”

“I wrote this more than ten years ago, mostly to poke fun at the legions of more-pedantic-than-thou prescriptivist grammar dweebs of the world. I occasionally get email about it, mostly “right on”, occasionally “you’re a moron”. I think anyone who cares strongly either way should probably take a deep breath and go for a walk. ”  >  Read on

What to do?

Wherever you stand on the acceptability of “very unique,” there’s no need for the “very” — and, as such, it doesn’t belong in formal writing. O/w, though, sure — go ahead and use “very unique.” Just be prepared to have some people think you’re stupid.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar