Stop chaining short clauses. Start embedding whole ideas the way academic writers do.
By C1 you can already build defining and non-defining relative clauses with who, which, that and whose. The advanced skill is a small family of structures that let you fold a whole argument into a single, controlled sentence and sound distinctly academic. Four moves matter most: a which that refers back to an entire clause (a sentential relative), a quantifier or noun + of which / of whom, the formal relative adverbs whereby, wherein and whereupon, and a fronted preposition + which/whom such as the extent to which.
These are not decoration. Each one lets you show a relationship between ideas — consequence, quantity, method, degree — without starting a new sentence. Used precisely, they raise the density and formality of your writing to the level examiners reward; used carelessly, they misfire badly, so this unit is as much about control as about range.
Normally which refers back to a noun. In a sentential relative it refers back to the entire preceding clause — the whole event or idea. It always follows a comma, and it lets you add a comment, a consequence or an evaluation without a fresh sentence. This is one of the most useful C1 structures — and the source of one of the most common errors, because learners reach for what instead.
| Structure | Refers to | Example |
|---|---|---|
| , which + verb | the whole previous clause | She quit the team without warning, which shocked the coach. |
| , all/none of which | a whole idea, quantified | He made three excuses, none of which convinced us. |
| , at which point | a moment within the clause | The lights failed, at which point the talk ended. |
To say something about part of a group you have just mentioned, C1 writers use a quantifier or a noun followed by of which (things) or of whom (people). This packs two facts — the group and the sub-fact — into one elegant sentence. The word order is fixed: the quantifier or noun comes first, then of which / of whom.
| Pattern | Use | Example |
|---|---|---|
| many / several / most of whom | a portion of a group of people | Ten new members joined, several of whom stayed on. |
| some / none / all of which | a portion of a set of things | She owns rare maps, some of which are priceless. |
| noun + of which / of whom | a specific attribute of the group | A club, the leader of whom had left, met late. |
These single-word relatives replace a clumsier preposition + which and sound crisp and formal. whereby = by which / by means of which (a method or system). wherein = in which (a situation, text or place, very formal). whereupon = immediately after which (a swift consequence in a sequence). They belong to academic, legal and literary prose — powerful, but easy to overuse.
| Word | Means | Example |
|---|---|---|
| whereby | by which / by means of which | A scheme whereby members earn points on purchases. |
| wherein | in which (a state or text) | The novel depicts a world wherein emotion is banned. |
| whereupon | right after which | He signed the deed, whereupon the keys changed hands. |
Formal English often fronts the preposition before the relative pronoun instead of leaving it stranded at the end. Compare informal "the house I live in" with formal "the house in which I live". This produces the classic academic phrases the extent to which, the manner in which, the degree to which and a friend with whom I worked. Separately, a reduced relative drops the pronoun and auxiliary to tighten a phrase.
| Full / informal | Advanced / formal | Why? |
|---|---|---|
| how far the plan worked | the extent to which the plan worked | nominal, academic register |
| the person I spoke to | the person to whom I spoke | fronted preposition + whom (formal) |
| questions that were raised | questions raised in the lesson | reduced relative — tighter, faster |
Because it begins with where-, learners often slip whereas into a relative slot. It is not a relative at all: it is a contrastive conjunction meaning "while, by contrast". It links two opposing ideas; it never introduces a relative clause about a noun. Confusing it with where / wherein / whereby is a signature C1 error.
| Wrong ✗ | Right ✓ | Why? |
|---|---|---|
| This is the classroom whereas I study. | This is the classroom where / in which I study. | place → relative, not whereas. |
| We found a door whereas led out. | We found a door which led out. | a noun → use which/that. |
| He is calm whereas. | He is calm, whereas she is tense. | whereas needs two contrasted ideas. |
These are the slips that still surface in otherwise strong C1 writing. Each one is a structure error, not a spelling slip. Audit your own sentences against every row.
| Wrong ✗ | Right ✓ | Why? |
|---|---|---|
| He was late, what annoyed everyone. | He was late, which annoyed everyone. | a sentential relative uses "which", never "what". |
| 200 guests, which of them left early. | 200 guests, many of whom left early. | quantifier + of whom; keep the order and use "whom" for people. |
| a method whereas costs fall. | a method whereby costs fall. | method = whereby; "whereas" is contrast, not a relative. |
| the degree which prices rose. | the degree to which prices rose. | the fronted preposition "to" is required before "which". |
| The result, the cause of whom is unknown. | The result, the cause of which is unknown. | a cause is a thing → "of which", not "of whom". |
A student and a teacher discuss a class project. Read it twice and watch the relative structures work as a system: a sentential which for a whole idea, a quantifier + of whom for part of a group, whereby for a method, the extent to which for degree, and whereupon for a swift consequence.
Choose the correct answer. — 10 questions, each one is marked instantly. Questions get harder as you go.
Learn the words of systems and structure, then use the unit's relatives to explain how something works.
Describe an organisation, system or place you know well — a club, a team, a game, a city, or your school. Write 8 sentences and use at least 8 of the words above. Make your relative structures do real work.
Sentence starters (you can begin with these):
Değerlendirme öğretmenin tarafından yapılacak. (Your teacher will review your task.)
Read the feature, then work through the five tasks.
Skilled readers prepare before they start. Before you read, think about these three questions (you do not need to write the answers):
Words to spot (from the Speaking section): framework · stipulate · encompass · contingent · interdependent · pertinent · underpin · intricate
For over fifty years, the Valdera River had been governed by a patchwork of local rules, none of which addressed the pollution steadily creeping downstream. In 2019, however, twelve municipalities signed a charter whereby every town along the river became jointly liable for its health — a framework wherein no single authority could shift the blame onto another.
The Valdera itself was hardly a dramatic river; for most of its course it wound unremarkably through farmland and small industrial towns, the prosperity of which had long depended on the very factories now fouling the water. It was precisely this quiet ordinariness, some observers later argued, that had allowed the problem to fester, for there was no single spectacular disaster around which public outrage might crystallise. Instead the decline had been gradual, almost imperceptible, the kind of slow ruin against which conventional politics is notoriously ill-equipped to act. By the time the first serious proposals emerged, the river had reached a condition in which incremental fixes were plainly no longer enough, and the towns that shared its banks faced a stark choice between coordinated action and years of mutual recrimination.
The document, the drafting of which took almost three years, established a shared monitoring fund. Each town contributed according to its size; consequently, an independent panel — the majority of whom were scientists rather than politicians — began publishing regular data. Moreover, the extent to which this openness changed public behaviour surprised even the charter's authors, which suggests that information alone can be a powerful regulator.
The mechanics of the fund were deliberately unglamorous. Each contribution was calculated by a transparent formula, the details of which were published alongside the results, so that no town could later claim to have been overcharged. Samples were drawn at fixed points along the river, the readings from which fed directly into an online dashboard that any resident could consult at will. The panel took particular care to standardise its methods, since inconsistent measurement would have handed sceptics an easy line of attack. Consequently, when a factory's discharge exceeded the agreed limits, the evidence arrived not as an accusation from a rival town but as a dry, verifiable number, the provenance of which was almost impossible to dispute. This, more than any single clause of the agreement, gave the charter its quiet authority.
Critics had predicted failure. Since the scheme was voluntary, they argued, the wealthier towns would simply opt out. Yet the opposite occurred. Factories, many of which had resisted regulation for decades, found that being named in an open report was far more damaging than any fine. Whereas earlier laws had punished pollution only after the fact, the charter created a mechanism whereby reputation itself enforced compliance.
What unfolded next was a slow shift in how the towns behaved. Factory owners who had once brushed off complaints about the water began to dread the published figures, for a poor result could appear in the local paper within hours. Families, shopkeepers and visitors alike could now read information that had once been seen only by officials, and a good name built over decades could be dented in a single report. Some factories argued with the data at first, disputing the readings; others, recognising which way the wind was blowing, chose instead to compete on cleanliness, proudly advertising their improving numbers. In this way openness did more than expose wrongdoing — it quietly changed the reasons behind every choice each town made.
By 2024, fish had returned to stretches of water wherein nothing had survived for a generation. The recovery, the pace of which astonished ecologists, was not total; several tributaries remained badly contaminated, the cleanup of which will take decades. Notwithstanding these gaps, the charter has become a model that other regions now study closely; nonetheless, its architects warn against copying it blindly.
The charter's growing fame brought complications of its own. Delegations from other river basins arrived to study the scheme, many of whom hoped to transplant it wholesale into circumstances that bore little resemblance to the Valdera. The architects were careful, in every briefing, to stress how much of the success had depended on local factors: a manageable number of towns, a shared sense of grievance, and a press willing to report the figures fairly. A mechanism that harnesses reputation, they cautioned, only works where reputation is visible and where an audience actually cares. Where those conditions were absent, the same open reports might simply be ignored, and the elegant structure that had disciplined the Valdera would achieve nothing at all. The lesson they pressed on their visitors was therefore not a template but a habit of mind: adapt the principle, they insisted, rather than copy the paperwork.
People who later studied the case were struck by how little it relied on the usual tools for protecting rivers. There were no new taxes, no army of inspectors, and no fresh punishments beyond those that already existed and had so plainly failed. What the charter supplied instead was a trustworthy flow of information and a structure in which that information genuinely mattered — an arrangement whereby the cost of pollution was paid, at least in part, in lost pride and public respect. Whether such an approach can be scaled to larger rivers, longer coastlines or whole regions remains genuinely uncertain; the Valdera, after all, is small, and the trust on which its charter depended cannot simply be ordered into existence. It is one thing to publish figures that a few thousand neighbours will actually read, and quite another to hold the attention of a distant crowd for whom a polluted shore is merely a word on a map. Even so, the experiment has forced a wider question into the open: how much of what we routinely ask the law to do might be achieved, more cheaply and more lastingly, by simply telling the truth in plain view.
Its central lesson, which is easily overlooked, is quietly radical: cooperation was secured not by a stronger law but by a cleverer structure — one wherein every signatory held a stake, and from which none could quietly withdraw.
Choose the correct answer.
Are these sentences true or false, according to the text?
Complete each sentence with ONE relative word from the text (which / whereby / whom / wherein).
Write your answer in your own words. These questions are not marked automatically.
1. Why did the voluntary charter succeed where the critics expected it to fail?
2. The writer says cooperation came "not by a stronger law but by a cleverer structure." What does this mean?
3. The recovery was "not total." Why do you think the writer includes this detail instead of ending on pure success?
Find these connectors in the text — each one appears at least once: however, whereas, moreover, consequently, notwithstanding, nonetheless, since, yet. (You will reuse these same C1 connectors in the Writing section.) Note them down, then check.
Combine choppy sentences into rich, embedded ones, then drill the relative structures with 10 quick questions.
Below is a flat description written as short, disconnected sentences. Every fact is true, but the writing is choppy: nothing is embedded, nothing is linked. Your job is to re-tell it, folding the facts together with the unit's relative structures.
Sentence starters (you can begin with these):
Değerlendirme öğretmenin tarafından yapılacak. (Your teacher will review your task.)
10 quick questions on advanced relative structures. Each one is marked instantly. Questions get harder as you go.
Write and submit a controlled, formal description; your teacher will review it.
At B2 you linked ideas with however, therefore, although, whereas. At C1 you gain a sharper, more formal register with connectors such as moreover, consequently, notwithstanding, whereas and nonetheless. Used precisely — and sparingly — they signal a writer in full command of tone, and they pair naturally with the relative structures of this unit.
| Connector | Use it to... | Example |
|---|---|---|
| moreover | add a stronger, further point | The fund grew. Moreover, transparency improved. |
| consequently | state a formal result or effect | Costs were shared; consequently, no town could opt out. |
| notwithstanding | concede "in spite of" (very formal) | Notwithstanding the gaps, the model spread. |
| whereas | draw a direct contrast (not a relative!) | Old laws punished; whereas the charter prevented. |
| nonetheless | say "even so", after a concession | It was voluntary; nonetheless, it worked. |
| however | contrast between two sentences | Success seemed unlikely. However, it came. |
See the difference — the same facts, written two ways:
| Choppy narration ✗ | Controlled C1 narration ✓ |
|---|---|
| The towns signed a charter. It made them all responsible. Some factories resisted. They were named in reports. This damaged them. | The towns signed a charter whereby all became jointly responsible. Some factories, many of which had resisted for years, were named in open reports, which damaged them far more than any fine. |
A strong C1 description of a system or institution is not a flat list of features. It manages relationships deliberately: it defines the thing, explains how it works, quantifies its parts, and evaluates it. The skeleton stays the same — you change the content, not the shape:
| Part | What to write | Structure to reach for |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Definition | what it is and why it matters | defining relative + the extent to which |
| 2. Mechanism | how it actually works | whereby (method) + wherein (state) |
| 3. Composition | who or what it is made of | quantifier + of which / of whom |
| 4. Evaluation | judge its strengths and limits | sentential which + C1 connectors |
Write an analytical description of a system, group or scheme — a club, a team, a game, an app, your school, or a family tradition you know well. Write like a skilled analyst: show how the parts relate, don't just list features.
Değerlendirme öğretmenin tarafından yapılacak. (Your teacher will evaluate your writing.)
Mixed questions from the whole unit, then check what you can do.
14 questions: grammar + vocabulary + reading + practice. Each question is marked instantly.
Tick what you can do now. Honest answers help your teacher.
İşaretlemediğin madde varsa ilgili bölüme dönüp tekrar çalış — soldaki menüden her bölüme geri dönebilirsin.
Oturum kontrol ediliyor...