Sunday, September 19, 2004

Lots of OG SCs

The only way for growers to salvage frozen citrus is to process them quickly into juice concentrate before they rot when warmer weather returns.
(A) to process them quickly into juice concentrate before they rot when warmer weather returns
(B) if they are quickly processed into juice concen­trate before warmer weather returns to rot them
(C) for them to be processed quickly into juice concentrate before the fruit rots when warmer weather returns
(D) if the fruit is quickly processed into juice concen­trate before they rot when warmer weather returns
(E) to have it quickly processed into juice concentrate before warmer weather returns and rots the fruit





For parallelism, the linking verb is should link two infinitives: The only way to salvage ... is to process. Choice A begins with an infinitive, but the plural pronouns them and they do not agree with the singular noun citrus. Choices B, C, and D do not begin with an infinitive, and all present pronoun errors: the plural pronouns cannot grammatically refer to citrus or fruit, nor can they refer to farmers without absurdity. The best choice, E, has parallel infinitives and uses fruit to refer unambiguously to citrus. E also expresses the cause-and-effect relationship between the return of warmer weather and the rotting of the fruit; A, C, and D merely describe these events as contemporaneous.



Astronomers at the Palomar Observatory have discovered a distant supernova explosion, one that they believe is a type previously unknown to science.
(A) that they believe is
(B) that they believe it to be
(C) they believe that it is of
(D) they believe that is
(E) they believe to be of



Got it right second time.
Choice E is best. The pronoun that in A and B should be deleted, since the pronoun one is sufficient to introduce the modifier and the sentence is more fluid without that. In B and C, it and that it are intrusive and ungrammatical: the idiom is "believe x to be y." In the context of this sentence, the infini­tive to be is more appropriate than the limited present-tense is in referring to an event that occurred long ago but has been discovered only recently. Finally, A, B, and D lack o/and so illogically equate this particular explosion with the whole class of explosions to which it belongs: it is not a type but possibly one of a type.



State officials report that soaring rates of liability insurance have risen to force cutbacks in the opera­tions of everything from local governments and school districts to day-care centers and recreational facilities.
(A) rates of liability insurance have risen to force
(B) rates of liability insurance are a force for
(C) rates for liability insurance are forcing
(D) rises in liability insurance rates are forcing
(E) liability insurance rates have risen to force





The questing I’d like to ask is why ‘rates for liability insurance is correct.
In choices A and B, rates of is incorrect; when rates means "prices charged," it should be followed by for. Also in B, are a force for does not accurately convey the meaning that the soaring rates are actually forcing cutbacks in the present. In A and E, it is redundant to say that soaring rates have risen. Similarly, the word rises makes D redundant. C, the best choice, is idiomatic and concise, and it correctly uses the progressive verb form are forcing to indicate an ongoing situation.




Paleontologists believe that fragments of a primate jawbone unearthed in Burma and estimated at 40 to 44 million years old provide evidence of a crucial step along the evolutionary path that led to human beings.
(A) at 40 to 44 million years old provide evidence of
(B) as being 40 to 44 million years old provides evidence of
(C) that it is 40 to 44 million years old provides evidence of what was
(D) to be 40 to 44 million years old provide evidence of
(E) as 40 to 44 million years old provides evidence of what was



Got it right second time.
D, the best choice, correctly follows estimated with to be. The other choices present structures that are not idiomatic when used in conjunction with estimated. Choices B, C, and E all mismatch the singular verb provides with its plural subject, fragments, and in choices C and E, what was is unnecessary and wordy. In choice C, the use of the verb phrase estimated that it is produces an ungrammatical sentence.




Each of Hemingway's wives--Hadley Richardson. Pauline Pfeiffer. Martha Gelhom. and Mary Welsh --were strong and interesting women, very different from the often pallid women who populate his novels.
(A) Each of Hemingway's wives--Hadley Richardson, Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gelhom, and Mary Welsh--were strong and interest­ing women,
(B) Hadley Richardson, Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gelhorn, and Mary Welsh--each of them Hemingway's wives--were strong and, interesting women,
(C) Hemingway's wives--Hadley Richardson, Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gelhom, and Mary Welsh--were all strong and interesting women,
(D) Strong and interesting women—Hadley Richardson, Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gelhom, and Mary Welsh--each a wife of Hemingway, was
(E) Strong and interesting women—Hadley Richardson, Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gelhom, and Mary Welsh--every one of Hemingway's wives were




Got it right second time.
Each choice but C contains errors of agreement. In both A and E, the singular subject (each in A, every one in E) does not agree with the plural verb were, while in D, the plural subject women is mismatched with the singular verb was. In B, the subject and verb agree, but the descriptive phrase placed between them creates an illogical statement because each cannot be wives; each can be one of the wives, or a wife. The pronoun constructions in A, B, D, and E are wordy; also, B, D, and E are very awkwardly structured and do not convey the point about Hemingway's wives clearly. Choice C correctly links wives with were, eliminates the unnecessary pronouns, and provides a clearer structure.




In addition to having more protein -than wheat does, the protein in rice is higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
(A) the protein in rice is higher quality than that in
(B) rice has protein of higher quality than that in
(C) the protein in rice is higher in quality than it is in
(D) rice protein is higher in quality than it is in
(E) rice has a protein higher in quality than





In this sentence, the initial clause modifies the nearest noun, identifying it as the thing being compared with wheat. By making protein the noun modified, choices A, C, and D illogically compare wheat with protein and claim that the protein in rice has more protein than wheat does. In C and D, the comparative structure higher in quality than it is in wheat absurdly suggests that rice protein contains wheat. B, the best choice, logically compares wheat to rice by placing the noun rice immediately after the initial clause. B also uses that to refer to protein in making the comparison between the proteins of rice and wheat. Choice E needs either that in or does after wheat to make a complete and logical comparison.





An array of tax incentives has led to a boom in the construction of new office buildings; so abundant has capital been for commercial real estate that investors regularly scour the country for areas in which to build.
(A) so abundant has capital been for commercial real estate that
(B) capital has been so abundant for commercial real estate, so that
(C) the abundance of capital for commercial real estate has been such,
(D) such has the abundance of capital been for commercial real estate that
(E) such has been an abundance of capital for commercial real estate,







Choice A is best. The construction so abundant has capital been... that correctly and clearly expresses the relationship between the abundance and the investors' response. In choice B, the repetition of so is illogical and unidiomatic. Choices C, D, and E alter somewhat the intended meaning of the sentence; because of its position in these statements, such functions to mean "of a kind" rather than to intensify abundant. Choice D awkwardly separates has and been, and the omission of that from C and E makes those choices ungrammatical.






Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpe­trators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food
(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior




Note the idiomatic use also
In choices A, C, and E, in attributing ... behavior modifies the perpetrators, producing the illogical statement that the perpetrators rather than the defense attorneys are attributing behavior to food allergies. Choice C is also wordy, and attributing ... as is unidiomatic in E. In the correct form of the expression, one attributes x, an effect, to y, a cause; or, if a passive construction is used, x is attributed to y. D avoids the initial modification error by using a passive construction (in which the attributors are not identified), but attributed x as the cause of y is unidiomatic. Choice B is best.






A report by the American Academy for the Advance­ment of Science has concluded that much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Ameri­cans are exposed comes from the incineration of wastes.
(A) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed comes
(B) much of the currently uncontrolled dioxins that North Americans are exposed to come
(C) much of the dioxins that are currently uncon­trolled and that North Americans are exposed to comes
(D) many of the dioxins that are currently uncontrolled and North Americans are exposed to come
(E) many of the currently uncontrolled dioxins to which North Americans are exposed come




Got it right second time.
Choices A, B, and C are flawed because the countable noun dioxins should be modified by many rather than much, which is used with uncountable nouns such as "work" and "happi­ness." In addition, both A and C incorrectly use the singular verb comes with the plural noun dioxins. Choices C and D are needlessly wordy, and D requires that before North Americans, to be grammatically complete. Choice E, the best answer, is both grammatically correct and concise.




Bufo marinus toads, fierce predators that will eat frogs, lizards, and even small birds, are native to South America but were introduced into Florida during the 1930's in an attempt to control pests in the state's vast sugarcane fields.
(A) are native to South America but were introduced into Florida during the 1930's in an attempt to control
(B) are native in South America but were introduced into Florida during the 1930's as attempts to control
(C) are natives of South America but were introduced into Florida during the 1930's in an attempt at controlling
(D) had been native to South America but were introduced to Florida during the 1930's as an attempt at controlling
(E) had been natives of South America but were introduced to Florida during the 1930's as attempts at controlling





Choice A is best. The phrasing are native to correctly suggests that the toad species is indigenous to, and still exists in, South America. In B, native in is unidiomatic; in C and E, natives of illogically suggests that each toad now in Florida hails from South America. In D and E, had been inaccurately implies that the toads are no longer native, or indigenous, to South America, and introduced to Florida is unidiomatic. Both as attempts in B and E and as an attempt in D are wrong because the attempt consists not of the toads themselves, but of their introduction into the environment. The correct phrase, in an attempt, should be completed by an infinitive (here, to control), as in A.





In metalwork one advantage of adhesive-bonding over spot-welding is that the contact, and hence the bond­ing, is effected continuously over a broad surface instead of a series of regularly spaced points with no bonding in between.
(A) instead of
(B) as opposed to
(C) in contrast with
(D) rather than at
(E) as against being at





Got it right second time.
The corrected sentence must contrast an effect of spot-welding with an effect of adhesive-bonding. To do so logically and grammatically, it must describe the effects in parallel terms. When inserted into the sentence, D produces the parallel construction over a broad surface rather than at a series. Having no word such as over or at indicate location, choices A, B, and C fail to complete the parallel and so illogically draw a contrast between surface and series. In E, as against being is a wordy and unidiomatic way to establish the intended contrast. Choice D is best.





In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world.
(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes
(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes
(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia
(D) Australia was what was the antipodes
(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes





Choice A is best, for A alone makes clear that the land now known as Australia was considered the antipodes before it was developed. In B, it has no logical referent, because the previous clause describes a time when there was no Australia. Nor does it have a referent in C: substituting Australia for it produces a nonsensical statement. D is wordy, with the unnecessary what was, and imprecise in suggesting that Australia was considered the antipodes after it became Australia. E similarly distorts the original meaning, and the past perfect had been is inconsistent with the past tense used to establish a time frame for the rest of the sentence.




Using a Doppler ultrasound device, fetal heartbeats can be detected by the twelfth week of pregnancy.
(A)Using a Doppler ultrasound device, fetal heart-beats can be detected by the twelfth week of pregnancy.
(B) Fetal heartbeats can be detected by the twelfth week of pregnancy, using a Doppler ultrasound device.
(C) Detecting fetal heartbeats by the twelfth week of pregnancy, a physician can use a Doppler ultrasound device.
(D)By the twelfth week of pregnancy, fetal heartbeats can be detected using a Doppler ultrasound device by a physician.
(E) Using a Doppler ultrasound device, a physician can detect fetal heartbeats by the twelfth week of pregnancy.




Got it right second time.
Choice A presents a dangling modifier. The phrase beginning the sentence has no noun that it can logically modify and hence cannot fit anywhere in the sentence and make sense. Coming first, it modifies heartbeats, the nearest free noun in the main clause; that is, choice A says that the heartbeats are using the Doppler ultrasound device. Choice B contains the same main clause and dangling modifier, now at the end. Contrary to intent, the wording in choice C suggests that physicians can use a Doppler ultrasound device after they detect fetal heartbeats. In choice D the phrase using ... device should follow physician, the noun it modifies. Choice E is best.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a Health blog. It pretty much covers Dieting Health Fitness Exercise related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time

3:15 AM  
Blogger job opportunitya said...

Wondrous blog. Your site was very pleasing and I
will go back again! I like surfing the net for blogs
as good as yours.
Where you been? You have got to look at my instant insurance life quote term blog!

7:21 AM  
Blogger job opportunitya said...

Cool blog. I dig your site outline and I plan on
returning again! I just love finding blogs like this
when I have the time.
Check out my short term disability insurance blog, you won't be sorry!

8:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home