tapca

Could you please elaborate on this "instead is not a conjunction" rule? Because many literature suggest that "instead" is a conjunctive adverb demonstrating contrast. Based on my understanding, both B and E solve the problem by creating two independent clause, but B runs into a classic conjunctive adverb comma splice, hence run-on-sentence. That, according to rule, should be fixed by ether putting semi colon or period in front of the second independent clause. Many thanks

Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else. Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering ( subject/verb problem ) Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ended shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber (subject verb problem ) Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and that ends shortly before Emily’s death in 1886and outnumbering (subject/verb ) Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother, ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, and outnumbering (bit more clear as period is structured as a clause, but tense problem with "outnumbering") Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber (looks good, clause "which were.." is well placed and "outnumber" verb form matches with "letters") My choice E, ------ My two cents.

because of erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds thrust to the surface by volcanic activity put gold literally within reach (for)- wrong idiom, "reach of" is better than "reach for" because of erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity that thrust ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds to the surface, and putting gold literally within reach of- Correct idiom, looks good owing to erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity that had thrust ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds to the surface, and putting gold literally within reach of (correct idiom, but change in the meaning due to "owing") since erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and volcanic activity that thrust ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds to the surface, putting gold literally within reach for (- wrong idiom, "reach of" is better than "reach for") since erosion, prehistoric glacier movement, and ancient, gold-bearing riverbeds thrust to the surface by volcanic activity put gold literally within reach of (Correct idiom but "because of" is better than "since"- GMAt tends to abuse since, as per the English rule "since" is preferred when the listener is aware of the information; "because" tends emphasis on information more vis-à-vis "since". Hence I am not comfortable with this one)My choice is B My two cents

Given that overall meaning is not impacted by replacing clause (Paleontologists who study ) by a phrase (Paleontologists studying), hence we can deduce that time (or verb) is not of importance. I think both are right but because GMAT prefers the shortest correct answer, Phrase is a better option over clause in this context my two cents.

Lets take this example John, who was a senior executive in ABC, is now working for NBC- clearly demonstrate the timing of John's tenure at ABC vis-à-vis NBC John, a senior executive in ABC, is now working for NBC,- not so in this case In above case clause can't be replaced with phrase. my two cents

(A) that they will, or could-- reference of they is not clear (B) that they would, or could, -- reference of they is not clear, usage of would is also rare for predictions, though it can be used for probability. This case is more of a prediction © they will be or could-- "But" joins two independent clauses, hence reference of they is not clear. (D) think that they will be or could--by adding think, reference of "they" is more clear as journalists are now subject of "think" verb, hence they can be clearly referred to power stations. (E) think the power stations would or could --"that" is needed to connect dependent clause. A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but think (that) "the power stations would or could , be made sufficiently safe in the future". Again Usage of would is confusing. Hence my choice is D My two cents

First one is adjective phrase and second one is adjective clause. As someone said "just because you can reduce a clause to a phrase doesn't mean you should". Verb is lost when you reduce a clause to a phrase and verb indicates time. Hence, if time is important for the correct meaning, use clause, otherwise phrase will do. Imagine the confusion in the meaning if you were to remove "who" from following sentence, The man who built the bridge is dead. --my two cents