Is the word "Everybody" singular or plural?
829058
Everybody is singular and thus takes the singular verb.\nImagine the simple subject/verb form to convince yourself.\n\nHe eats.  She eats.  They eat.\nNow replace the pronoun with everybody.\nEverybody eat.   or    Everybody eats.  \nOf course it is "Everybody eats."\n\nP.S.  Everyone who still owns a copy of Strunk and White,\n        raise it over your head in your left  hand.
697938
The use of "their" is correct since you used the plural "others", but I would say "see their work in print".  Just a suggestion.
89989
i am \nyou are\nwe are\nthey are\nhe is\nyou (plural) are
260584
I would say "There's a lot of..." is closer to being correct.  The word 'lot' is a collective noun, like jury or crowd, so it is consider singular.  The verb form should match the number of the noun.  "There IS (one) lot of...".\n\nIf you wanted to use 'There are', then you'd change the number of lot to the plural form, lots.  "There are lots of people who...".
1022332
Look at your subject. The subj. in this sentence is "babies" which is plural. Therefore, the subject must agree in number with the verb. Your verb must then be the plural form "have."
825552
yup, this is a singular, plural thing ... it differs from our usual plurals because we take both forms from the original greek. Another example is criterion, criteria (the word criteria is often wrongly used as a singular).
316077
Person is singular\npeople is plural
846889
The problem is not necessarily in the wording, but in the conjunctions you chose to use. For example, you said "man OR woman, black Or white, gay OR straight, AND young OR old..."\nAlso you used the word ALL, meaning everyone that you mentioned. The word all doesn't necessarily work when you use or. Or is used to present an option or choice with exclusion, whereas all and and are used inclusively. \nTry this:  "This would mean that man and woman, blacks and whites, homosexuals and heterosexuals, and the young and elderly would be treated the same, regardless." \n\nI sure hope this helps you out.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
790396
There is not any instance in which (d) could be the correct answer because (d) is grammatically incorrect. The "many things" must be referred to in a plural noun to make the response balance. You wouldn't say "What are it?" because you are referring to more than one thing. The (c) answer, "What are they? clearly asks of all the things he has in is box, What things are in the box?
666774
D.\n\nA is incorrect because it's supposed to be plural (womens')\nB is plural\nC is incorrect as "whose" is the possessive.
957255
weetabix is actualy the plural, the singular is wheetabi
1046333
A. is wrong because neither x nor y should use "is", not are\nD. is wrong because sound is singular and were is plural\nB. is wrong because pair is singular and cost is plural\n\nC is correct: she is singular and has told is singular
336303
For the same reason that pants is plural and shirt is singular.
38343
It's timeouts.  The word is one word, not two - as in, timeout, not time out.  So hence, following English rules, the plural form would have the s at the end of the single word.  Plus, if you check out the closed captioning in football games, you'd hear (and read!) the announcers say timeouts several times in the closing minutes of each half.
438823
School's is correct, it is showing possession. Schools' would be showing plural possession. The sentence appears to be correct.
194184
It is just an expression meaning 'everybody' (but generally refers to guys).
848712
I would agree with you; the word by its very nature is plural. It's ridiculous to try to make it more so. Perhaps if you were threatened or heavily bribed, you *might* be able to make the word redundantly plural. \n\nHow, then, should you go about this distasteful task? I would suggest looking at the etymology of the word. "Surplus" comes from several sources. I chose to look at the Latin roots: "super" (meaning "over") + "plus" (meaning "more"). After some contemplation of the problem, I at last came to one conclusion--the only possible one, I believe, considering the Latin. For of course, the only logical pluralization of surplus...is "surpli."