Could you please explain to me why question #26 is B? Thank you!

"The place that we visited". If you change the sentence around, "we visited the place": "the place" is the direct object of "visited". This is different to the situations in which we'd use "where". "The place where we danced"; switch it around and it becomes "we danced *in* (or *at*) the place".

As a native speaker I would honestly use B in this context before A. Or just say “The place we visited last summer was full of beautiful flowers”, it doesn’t need another word to be grammatically correct.

If you use where, one would expect to be clarifying the location of the place itself. The place where the daffodils grow. Or the place where the land meets the ocean. But you’re clarifying that you visited it. Just like in the sentence I just wrote, that’s a “that” clarification. I don’t know the official rule here, but that’s how it works to my native-English-speaking brain. It doesn’t seem like a particularly strong rule, though, and I don’t think a native speaker would notice either or neither.

not really sure, i think "where" in this context might sound slightly awkward to a native speakers ears. it's not wrong per se but it just doesn't sound as natural when i say it aloud

To introduce a clause, "Where" replaces "that...at" (and maybe some other prepositions). "...we visited..." does not need a preposition, so most native speakers would use "that" and not "where."

I would omit any word between "place" and "visited" since it isn't needed. However, both options would be acceptable in everyday speech

It’s because of how the verb acts on the subject. Some examples: We visited a place We swam in water We watched a boat We stayed at the hotel If you swap the subject, how you identify it changes depending on the verb. The place (that) we visited (that is optional) The water where (or “in which”) we swam The boat (that) we watched (that is optional) The hotel at which (or “where”) we stayed You might have noticed that when you use “at” or “in” you cant just omit it later, or replace it with “that”. But the opposite is also true, you can’t put “at/in which” or “where” when the verb doesn’t require it when the sentence is switched around.

Most speakers would actually just say "The place we visited last summer" without a qualifying word, unless we'd been talking about, say, a place we'd visited last summer and a place we visited last winter. BTW, for question 27 both A and C would be correct.

Description of the place

As a native, my inclination was to say "the place which we visited" so uh...

Is it because "place" is the object of "visited"? Like, I would say "We lived there" or "We met there" but never "We visited there". It has to be "We visited that place/country/etc." So it becomes "The place where we met" but "The place that we visited".

It's because it is a restrictive clause - the meaning changes if you remove it. Use 'that' for restrictive clauses, and wh-words for non-restrictive clauses. Restrictive clause: The hotel *that we stayed at last year* was great. - The meaning of the sentence will change if we take this clause out. Non-restrictive clause: My dad, *who you met yesterday*, is visiting soon. - The meaning doesn't change, we just have less detail.

As an English teacher I find teaching where vs. which/that to be super complicated. Based on what sounds right to my ear I can definitely say which is right and which is absolutely wrong. However, explaining it as a simple rule is harder. If you can divide the complex sentence into two simple sentences you can see it more clearly. The place was full of beautiful flowers. We visited it. The answer is that because the relative pronoun is replacing it. So why is it it rather than there? Because visited is a transitive verb which gets followed by an object. There is an adverb and therefore can't be the object. As far as meaning goes, there are a lot of places that could be looked at as locations or as organizations. For example "the school." Is it an location or an organization? If the sentence is using it as a location use where. If it's being used as an organization use which/that. The school where had our football match is in the countryside. The school which hosted the tournament is in the countryside.

"The place where we visited" is not wrong, but it has a different meaning. Visiting becomes an activity happening at the place. As in you might go somewhere and then visit a bunch of people.

While it is not grammatically correct, a lot of English speakers will say "Where" in this case as well.

"Where" would be used like this to mark the location where you performed an action. On its own like this, 'that' is correct, though as others have said you could just omit it entirely. "Visit" is a movement action that takes you from one place to another, so it sounds a little weird to say you 'where we visited', because I'd expect something else. What did you visit? By adding a specific location within a broader location, you could use "where" with "visit". For example, "The place where we visited this museum was full of tourists." In such a statement, 'full of tourists' wouldn't necessarily be describing "this museum" but rather "the place where we visited", perhaps a country or city. However, you still visited the museum within that place.

I would just say "the place we visited", but if I had to include a clarifying word I would say "that".

The “where” should be used as adverbial phrase in subordinate clause. And the “visited” needs object(nouns).

While B is correct, this is hyper-technical and nerdy. I don't think a native speaker would be put off by "where."

Huh, reading this post made me realize that I have understood it wrong the whole time. I thought if there is an action in the relative clause, we use "where" and if there isn't an action, we use "which/that" For example. The school where we used to study in The school which has a lot of prestigious teacher Could anyone please clarify this understanding for me?

Honestly I would use the sentence without any of those choices

Presuming you already know why 'that' is the right choice: 'that' is a relative pronoun which introduces essential (restrictive) information or clauses. Although 'that' is the right choice, you could omit it if the sentence doesn't lead to ambiguity.

I know where sounds correct because of place, but grammatically *that* is the better word here because it’s referring to the *noun* itself.

The sentence would be just as correct if the blank didn’t exist and we just said “the place we visited last summer was full of beautiful flowers” don’t fall into the trap of unnecessary “that”

The "best" choice is B (others have explained why). However, I'd argue one *could* also use D, here - maybe with a few more commas, though. It would alter the meaning of the sentence, but it wouldn't be *incorrect*, would it ?

A isn't actually wrong, but it has a different meaning and isn't in common use anymore. as other commenters have noted, using "where" means that the place can no longer be the direct object of the sentence, so there must be some other type of visit going on. maybe we visited each other. but as i said, no one talks like this anymore and very few would even write this. "that" is what you're looking for.

As a native speaker, I vote that the most appropriate option is to leave the word out completely. To me "The place we visited last summer was full of beautiful flowers." is the most natural.

As a native English speaker you could use A, B(the 1st B), and D with me and it’d sound right. But I’ll agree with a lot of the others here that the sentence is fine without adding in an extra unneeded word there.

It doesn't matter. I like A better, but B would technically work.