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 debate team without notice, 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 | We recruited ten volunteers, 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 | The council, the head of whom had resigned, 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 students earn points for reading. |
| wherein | in which (a state or text) | The novel depicts a world wherein emotion is banned. |
| whereupon | right after which | He handed in the form, whereupon the trip was confirmed. |
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 classmate with whom I studied. 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) |
| issues that were raised | issues raised in the debate | 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 students, which of them left early. | 200 students, many of whom left early. | quantifier + of whom; keep the order and use "whom" for people. |
| a method whereas waste falls. | a method whereby waste falls. | method = whereby; "whereas" is contrast, not a relative. |
| the degree which grades rose. | the degree to which grades 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 research 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 school, a city, a sports team. 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
Ask a classroom of teenagers to name the hardest kind of problem to solve, and few will think of a river. Yet when a group of students from a valley school were handed the case of the Valdera, they uncovered a story that had far less to do with chemistry than with cooperation — a story the implications of which stretch into every corner of their own lives. The question at its heart is one any teenager recognises from a group project or a shared changing room: how do you persuade people who owe each other nothing to take responsibility for something they all depend on?
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 old patchwork had not failed for any lack of good intentions. Each town employed inspectors, passed its own by-laws and fined the occasional offender; the trouble was that responsibility dissolved the instant the water slipped across a boundary. A factory near the source could foul a stretch that harmed only a village downstream, the residents of which held no power whatsoever over the polluter. This is the classic weakness of any shared resource, wherein everyone gains from using it yet nobody feels obliged to protect it — a dilemma students meet whenever a common room, a class fund or a playing field is quietly left for "someone else" to look after.
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 quarterly 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 mechanism the charter introduced was deceptively simple. Instead of building a new police force, the signatories designed a system whereby information itself did the disciplining. Sensors positioned at each town's boundary fed their readings into a public database, the contents of which anyone — a journalist, a teacher, a curious fifteen-year-old — could open online. Because every figure was attributed to a named town rather than buried inside a technical report, each mayor understood that a bad month would be visible to the very residents, many of whom were parents of school-age children, on whom their re-election ultimately depended.
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.
Reputation, it turned out, was a currency none of the factories could afford to squander. Schools along the valley began setting projects wherein pupils charted the monthly readings for their own town, and the attention this generated was merciless: a firm that slid down the league table might find its name pinned to a corridor display within the week. Several plant managers, none of whom relished being lectured by fourteen-year-olds, quietly upgraded their filters rather than endure another assembly. Whereas a fine could be absorbed as a routine cost of doing business, public embarrassment — particularly embarrassment delivered by the community's own young people — proved almost impossible to write off.
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.
Recovery, when it finally arrived, was uneven and hard-won. The stretches closest to the monitoring stations improved first, whereupon the more remote tributaries — the neglect of which had always been easiest to overlook — became the next target of public pressure. Ecologists were careful to warn that a returning fish population is not the same thing as a healthy river, and that decades of accumulated sediment do not disappear simply because a document has been signed. The students who followed the data noticed something their textbooks rarely admitted: that real progress is almost always partial, and that a project can be worth defending even when it is far from finished. It is precisely this refusal to exaggerate that has made the Valdera such a valuable case study for young people, wherein genuine progress and stubborn failure sit side by side and neither is dressed up as the whole truth.
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.
For the students who pore over it today, the charter carries a lesson that far outlasts the details of any single river. It suggests that fairness is frequently a matter of design rather than goodwill: a well-built structure can quietly make cooperation the easiest choice, whereas a poorly built one can make selfishness feel almost reasonable. That is a principle a class can put to the test the very next morning — in the way a group project is divided, the manner in which a shared budget is spent, and the extent to which each member agrees, in the end, to be seen keeping their word.
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, institution or scheme — a school policy, a student council, a club, an app, or a 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...