In chapter 34, Catullus 51 reads:
otium et reges prius et beatas perdidit urbes."
The answer key (from Texkit) reads "leisure and kings before have destroyed even prosperous cities."
However, I interpreted it as: "leisure has destroyed before both kings and wealthy cities."
The question is whether to treat "reges" as nominative or acussative. I interpreted it as accussative because of the "et" before it, so that it goes with "et beatas" and, consequently, with "urbes". If the second "et" had not been there, I would definitely have thought of "reges" as nominative.
P.S. While I'm asking about Wheelock, a tiny question I have been asking myself: Why does Wheelock label Catullus 13 in chapter 33 as "B.Y.O.B., etc., etc."?