Question

Change the sentence
``He could count the number of persons in the crowd'' into an interrogative sentence

• A. Who could count the number of persons in the crowd?
• B. Anyone could count the number of persons in the crowd?
• C. Could he count the number of persons in the crowd?
• D. Can he count the number of persons in the crowd?

Hint:

When an assertive sentence already contains a helping or modal verb like could, turning it into a question is incredibly easy! Just pick up that helping verb, swap its position with the subject by moving it to the front, and add a question mark!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Concept: When converting a statement that contains a modal auxiliary verb (such as can, could, should, would, may, might, will, shall) into a direct yes/no interrogative question, we follow the syntax transformation principle called

Subject-Auxiliary Inversion.

Step-by-Step Transformation Rule:

• Identify components in the original sentence: ``He could count the number of persons in the crowd'' itemize

• Subject: He

• Modal Auxiliary Verb: could (past ability)

• Main Verb: count

• Object/Extension: the number of persons in the crowd

Apply Inversion: Move the modal auxiliary verb from its position after the subject to the very front of the sentence, placing it right before the subject. \[ \text{Subject} + \textbf{Modal Auxiliary} + \text{Verb} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \textbf{Modal Auxiliary} + \text{Subject} + \text{Verb} \] Following this pattern, ``He could count...'' transforms perfectly into ``Could he count...''. Add a question mark at the end to finalize the interrogative syntax structure. itemize

Analysis of Options:

• Option (A) is incorrect because changing the subject to "Who" converts it into an open-ended question about identity, which alters the specific focus and core meaning of the original claim.

• Option (B) is incorrect because it maintains declarative word order and simply slaps a question mark at the end, while replacing the subject with "Anyone", creating an ungrammatical statement.

• Option (C) is correct because it perfectly executes the subject-auxiliary inversion rule while fully preserving both the tense and meaning of the original sentence.

• Option (D) is incorrect because changing "could" to "can" illegally alters the grammatical tense from past ability/conditional capability to present capability.