Philospher57

IMO A OA pls

Has to be A

Presence of "all" invalidates choice D.

D cant be the Answer.There might be other sources of salt in Yoruba apart from Sea salt and Saharan salt mines.Also, being distant from sources does not necessarily mean scarcity of salt. In short D presents an example of a location in which salt "may" or "may not" be present.A gives an example where salt is defintely present (no doubt) HTH

IMO A. If eveyone makes exception,there would be no change.

Ans is clearly 3. 1 is ABSOLUTELY wrong as death of a close relative may or may not qualify as a traumatic situation- (viloent or life-threatening situation). Trauma happens when,lets say , you fall from a moving train and luckily survive or fall in sea from a moving ship. Hope I am clear.

IMO A. If the visitors are common,conclusion gets flawed.

One of the X that....construction demands to be followed by singular tense.The sentence is talking about ONE which is part of the group X..

B 4 me 2.

a)Shantanjay, It can refer to ANY noun in the sentence eg- According to a recent study, the elderly in the United States are four times more likely to give regular financial aid to their children as to receive it from them. Or it may not have any antecedent eg It was John who did it. (Construction-it + SINGULAR be-verb + SUBJECT COMPLEMENT + that/who) Or a standard phrase- Nigeria was able to make it into the finals of World Cup.b)yes, that refers to extinctions. Take a nice example that would serve the purpose of showing usage of both "that " & "it"- Contrary to the scholarly wisdom of the 1950’s and early 1960’s that predicted the processes of modernization and rationalization would gradually undermine it, ethnicity is a worldwide phenomenon of increasing importance. (A) would gradually undermine it (B) to be a gradual undermining of it © would be a gradual undermining of ethnicity (D) to gradually undermine ethnicity (E) gradually undermining it Answer-

Hi KK! same here. I did'nt know that I need to be Shakespeare to get admission till I saw admission essays. I think scoring an 800 is easier:mad::crazy::yuck::doh::(

If you are asking about the cosmetic lookup of the forum,Erin, honestly speaking I liked the older one.I think it was more bright,this one seems to be soberly boring (especially the colours).

Shantanjay, your question is too broad to be answered accurately.If you can give some examples,perhaps I can give a try.There is a post (in sticky thread SCtips) by GSCHMILINSKY regarding modifier, refer to that post. Related to the question in this post, I am giving other examples & explanations below,you may read them- RESUMPTIVE MODIFIER: Since the 1930's aircraft manufacturers have tried to build airplanes with frictionless wings, shaped so smoothly and perfectly that the air passing over them would not become turbulent. (A) wings, shaped so smoothly and perfectly (B) wings, wings so smooth and so perfectly shaped © wings that are shaped so smooth and perfect (D) wings, shaped in such a smooth and perfect manner (E) wings, wings having been shaped smoothly and perfectly so Answer:B GSCHMILLY: I beleive the reason why this modifier does not automatically modify the closest noun is because 'with frictionless wings' is a prepositional phrase that should be ignored when finding the antecedent of the adjectival phrase. If the sentence did not have the prepositional phraseI believe the modifier would refer to the nearest available noun. BOB: I see a number of reasons to not to prefer A to B. First of all, when "wings" is not repeated, it is not clear whether "shaped" modifies "wings" (the nearest plural noun), "airplanes" (a plural noun that is in a stronger position, i.e. the object), or perhaps even "manufacturers" (a plural noun in an even stronger position, i.e. the subject). Similarly, when "wings" is not repeated, the reference of "them" is ambiguous. Furthermore, "shaped so smoothly" is not quite right. Smoothness is a texture, not a shape. "So smooth and so perfectly shaped" makes more sense. [Note: Grammar pedants might quibble about "so perfectly." Can some wings be more perfectly shaped than others?] The best, and really only, answer to this question is B: ERIN:wings, wings so smooth and so perfectly shaped Using smoothly as an adverb to modify shaped is illogical--you can't "shape" something "smoothly;" you can shape something quickly, easily, lazily, but not smoothly. That gets rid of A and E. D is wordy and and essentially commits the same error (shaped in a smooth manner = shaped smoothly). C is wrong because it is ungrammatical to say "shaped so smooth;" "smooth" is an adjective that rightly modifies the noun "wings." We cannot use "shaped" as a linking verb between "wings" and "smooth." But we can use a be-verb as a linking verb between "wings" and "smooth." B, the only possible answer, uses a reduced form to join "wings" and "smooth:" wings that are so smooth and so perfectly shaped = wings so smooth and so perfectly shaped Many people ask about the repetition of the word "wings." Again, by the process of reduction our original sentence: wings, which are wings that are so smooth and so perfectly shaped gets reduced to wings, wings so smooth and so perfectly shaped Hope that's clear. file:///D:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSHASHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif Nil also asked about whether modifiers "automatically" modify the closest nouns. No, they do not. If they did, SC would be much, much easier and we could choose answers mechanically. Here's a famous example of a modifier that has no good place in the sentence: The cop shot the man with the gun. At some point, we have to have an "ear" for what's right and what's not right, what is understandable and what is not. 2)The Petroleum Institute & the US Energy Department reported sharp drop in oil prices about oil inventory, a development that some investors interpreted as the first indications of oil cutbacks by the world producers as the beginnings to act languishing the drop. A) a development that some investors interpreted as the first indications of oil cutbacks by the world producers as the beginnings to B) a development that some investors interpreted to be the first indications that oil cutbacks of the world producers began to C) a development that some investors interpreted as the first indications that oil cutbacks of the world producers are beginning to D) which some investors interpreted as the first indications that oil cutbacks by the world producers began to E) which some investors interpreted to be the first indications that oil cutbacks of the world producers began to GSCHMILINSKY: 'which' is a relative pronoun and typically relative pronouns create relative (subordinated) phrases that modify a noun not a phrase. http://grammar.uoregon.edu/pronouns/relative.html . Let's assume for a second that 'which' refers to the object of 'reported' namely: 'drop in oil prices about oil inventory.' Don't you think that the article 'a' is needed in front of 'drop' i.e. 'The PI and the US reported a drop in oil prices;' That's problem number one I have with the question. Problem number two is that 'about oil inventory,' has ambigous phrasing. A more succinct and correct IMHO phrasing would be 'reflecting oil inventory' or 'caused by oil inventory' i.e. 'The PI and the US reported a drop in oil prices reflecting oil inventory' or 'The PI and the US reported a drop in oil prices caused by oil inventory.' Third problem I have with the question is the incorrect mix of tenses. Notice that the beginning of the sentence is in the past tense 'reported', and the subordinated phrase is also 'interpreted' in the past tense. Now think about that for a second. The sentence basically says that investors interpreted at the same time as the PI and US reported. IMHO a more correct way to write the sentence is to have the past perfect 'had reported' rather than the simple past tense 'reported.' So now let's substitute 'a drop in oil prices' for 'which' so that the sentence is written: 'a drop in oil prices some investors interpreted as the first indications that oil cutback by world producers began to act languishing the drop,' Does that make sense to you, because it sure doesn't make sense to me? First it's an 'indication' not 'indications'. Secondly, the word 'indications' requires either 'a drop in oil prices some investors interpreted as the first indications that oil cutback by world producers would begin to act... languishing the drop,' However, 'languishing the drop' doesn't fit here, right? Bottom line I do think this is a bad question or answer or both. C fixes a lot of the problems but indeed is not perfect either. It's the one I would have chosen. 800BOB: Forget this question. It seems to have been written by someone who does not speak English. "...reported sharp drop in oil prices about oil industry..."?? That's not just unidiomatic; it's gibberish. 3)Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists, an asteroid bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America, which, causing plant and animal extinctions, marks the end of the geologic era known as the Cretaceous Period. A. which, causing plant and animal extinctions, marks B. which caused the plant and animal extinctions marking C. and causing plant and animal extinctions that mark D. an event that caused plant and animal extinctions, and it marks E. an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark Philospher57: Has to be E.There is a comma before underlined portion.In D,the presence of another comma after "extinctions" makes this portion non-restrictive.The sentence continues after "and".The reference of "it" becomes "asteroid"which is definitely NOT what the sentence wants to convey.

who was awarded powers? CIA. So who would be enabled? Dont forget to look into context of the sentence before questioning the ambiguity.

Generally,but it cant be taken as a hard and fast rule.Problem with B is that it is unnecessarily wordy.

A & B both are impossible choices.presence of "a" in underlined portion points towards some other treatise and not to "Discourse on women".The sentence ought to talk about this treatise.Treatise/papers/discourses can ,of course, argue, advocate...eg.The article argues that... (Correct) E looks clean.

1) Not necessary that a choice be grammatically wrong.B is like- John is a boy who is good. Does it make sense?Why not simply say- John is a good boy.

Imo C

IMO A. "an evolutionary advantage...." modifier clause explaining previous part of sentence

A is ABSOLUTELY correct.View the sentence after removing junk- Green taxes are having a positive effect on the environment and natural resource base of countries as varied as China, the Neitherlands, and Hungary. View this- Einstein had great impact on people of fields as different as science,politics and religion. (Correct) Now view this- Einstein had great impact on people of fields as different as people of science,politics and religion. (Incorrect) Red is wrong because science,politics and religion are examples of fields which "different" is modifying.To illustrate more lets see this sentence like this- Einstein had great impact on people of different fields like science ,politics and religion. The above sentence( which everyone will agree is correct) is another way of writing the sentence in blue. Coming back to original sentence- Green taxes are having a positive effect on the environment and natural resource base of different countries like China, the Neitherlands, and Hungary. Changing a bit- Green taxes are having a positive effect on the environment and natural resource base of countries as different(synonym of varied but used this as this seems more innocent) as China, the Neitherlands, and Hungary. HTH

Trymore, view this- Each year companies in the US could save as much as $58 billion in maintenance operations if they paid more attention to .... Here, maintenance operation entails costs that are paid by Company.Presence of "in" changes the meaning of the original sentence.Original sentence conveys $58 billion saving BY preventing illness.D says that $58 billion will be saved "IN" cost of illness prevention. Hope I am clear.

Both parts of underlined text (i.e.sale of nearly... & half going to US) modify Argentina's status of being leading exporter of honey.Presence of "and" between these two parts is therefore unwarranted.Eliminate B & D. A & C are awkward constructions. E has both parts parallel & is appropriate choice

IMO C.Negate it and arguement falls apart

The emphasis of question is on Caffeine being the reason of blah blah (caffeine will harm by destroying surefootedness).C gives another reason-narcotics-imples narcotics may be THE reason...

Imo A