This is an interesting question to learn the actual usage of Verb- Tense.
Actually 3 actions are taking place in this question one is past tense which is upto the time time Quetzalcoatlus died, another is past participle - the time before Quetzalcoatlus had lived and at that time it had wingspan of 36 feet and the last one present perfect- that is upto(starting from the time it died) the time it is believe that has the longest wing span.
A -> wrong tense and moreover believed is seems to be modifying wingspan.
B-> wrong tense again it is unclear that what this "that" is modifying.
C-> Correct use of tense- present particple, it is clearly refering to the subject of previous clause Quetzalcoatlus. Hence correct !
D-> it is completely awkward.
E-> wrong use of tense as it is believed that this creature is the largest flying animal from the time in past to some time back in present.
Yep. I was always missing the tense part . Thanks It would be easy if we removed the extra details and read like this: "A huge flying reptile ..blah-2.., the Quetzalcoatlus had ..blah-2.., and it is believed to have been ..blah-2.."
The "it is" indicating that people still believe so, rather than believed(which is incorrect) implying that people no longer believes that.
1. A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future. (A) that they will, or could, (B) that they would, or could, (C) they will be or could (D) think that they will be or could (E) think the power stations would or could
I think the "they" in D is ambiguous(journalist/nuclear power stations).
E appears to be poorly written as "...the power stations would or could be made sufficiently ....". Although is not ambiguous.
The other options also lose on grammar and ambiguity. I am not able to decide a clear winner.
1. A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future. (A) that they will, or could, (B) that they would, or could, (C) they will be or could (D) think that they will be or could (E) think the power stations would or could
I think the "they" in D is ambiguous(journalist/nuclear power stations).
E appears to be poorly written as "...the power stations would or could be made sufficiently ....". Although is not ambiguous.
The other options also lose on grammar and ambiguity. I am not able to decide a clear winner.
My take is C. Once the views of the int journalist has already been mentioned in the sentence, so "think" again should be avoided. and the uses of will/could in A and would/could in B is unclear. That leaves the option C as correct. What's the OA?
My take is C. Once the views of the int journalist has already been mentioned in the sentence, so "think" again should be avoided. and the uses of will/could in A and would/could in B is unclear. That leaves the option C as correct. What's the OA?
I'm afraid but I can't agree with this logic. Reason: "views/opinion" being noun & "think" being a verb are absolutely different ideas and have seperate purposes. I could elaborate on this if need be. Anyways the OA is D .
Lets write the sentence in a simpler form(being my favorite) going with your choice to explain the error: X view Y as unsafe but they will be or could be made sufficiently safe.
Now lets put the same using the correct option as per the book:
X view Y as unsafe but think that they will be or could be made sufficiently safe.
Be the judge yourself and choose the one that expresses the meaning better if not in the best manner ? Any thoughts???
However my original doubt still remains i.e. "they" in the correct choice(D) is ambiguous. If we don't have a satisfactory explanation we can always say we have to choose the best out of the given choices although the world out there might have a host of better options.
Many people have already pointed out that participle is the correct usage here.
Actually in usages such as this one, Participles almost always indicate a cause and effect scenario (e.g. Israel bombed an aid flotilla of six ships, precipitating a world wide criticism).
However, in the above sentence, there is clearly no cause and effect scenario; two almost independent facts have been described. Perhaps the best way to put this sentence would be:
Two distinct manuscript traditions preserve nineteen plays of the Athenian tragedian Euripides, more than the number of extant plays of both Aeschylus and Sophocles combined.
Its from an old test
Here is the explanation
In the sentence as written, the pronoun which has no real antecedent. An argument might be made for plays, but it's really the number of plays, which should be the antecedent. If it is plays, the singular verb surpasses is incorrect. Proper usage requires a participle, surpassing, rather than the relative pronoun which.
A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future. (A) that they will, or could, (B) that they would, or could, (C) they will be or could (D) think that they will be or could (E) think the power stations would or could
EducationAisle Says
They is actually not ambiguous. A majority of the international journalists in the is the noun-subject in first clause (before the but) and they is the pronoun-subject in the second clause (after the 'but'). In such cases, pronoun-subjects can be assumed to refer to the noun subjects.
i dont agree with this explanation for choosing option D as the correct answer..
in option D 'they' is still ambiguous.. it is still unclear whether 'they' refers to journalists or nuclear power stations.. also as per ur explanation if 'they' refers to 'a majority of international journalist', then the sentence will become logically incorrect because it's not the journalist who are to be made safe but it's the nuclear power stations..
but if we modify the sentence by placing 'they' juz after 'but'(conjunction) then the above ambiguity will be removed.. here 'they' will b referring to journalists.. A majority---blah blah-----view--blah blah--but they think---blah blah (read only the bold parts) also in this case parallelism is maintained.. but this is not the case as in option D..
i dont agree with this explanation for choosing option D as the correct answer..
in option D 'they' is still ambiguous.. it is still unclear whether 'they' refers to journalists or nuclear power stations.. also as per ur explanation if 'they' refers to 'a majority of international journalist', then the sentence will become logically incorrect because it's not the journalist who are to be made safe but it's the nuclear power stations..
but if we modify the sentence by placing 'they' juz after 'but'(conjunction) then the above ambiguity will be removed.. here 'they' will b referring to journalists.. A majority---blah blah-----view--blah blah--but they think---blah blah (read only the bold parts) also in this case parallelism is maintained.. but this is not the case as in option D..
so option E looks better than option D..
how abt that would and could. I think they both refers the same thing and makes the redundancy error. Isnt it? So i think D is better. "They" in D refers to weapons.
how abt that would and could. I think they both refers the same thing and makes the redundancy error. Isnt it? So i think D is better. "They" in D refers to weapons.
hi bro.. sorry i couldn't get exactly wat u meant here..
did if u mean would=could?? 'would' and 'could' have different meanings and have completely different context usages..
1 more thing.. 'will be or could' doesn't look parallel.. 'will be or can be' would have been better..
My take is C. Once the views of the int journalist has already been mentioned in the sentence, so "think" again should be avoided. and the uses of will/could in A and would/could in B is unclear. That leaves the option C as correct. What's the OA?
My take : D
Correct construction - international journalists view nuclear power stations as unsafe ..but think that they... A, B, C are awkward. that is missing in E too. Also, construction 'would or could be' is awkward. they can refer to journalists or nuclear power stations but in this case meaning is so obvious that there is no scope of confusion.
1. A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future. (A) that they will, or could, (B) that they would, or could, (C) they will be or could (D) think that they will be or could (E) think the power stations would or could
.
I think the "they" in D is ambiguous(journalist/nuclear power stations).
E appears to be poorly written as "...the power stations would or could be made sufficiently ....". Although is not ambiguous.
The other options also lose on grammar and ambiguity. I am not able to decide a clear winner.
This question is a clear case of parallelism and view, whichis acting as a verb is quite parallel to another verb think in option D and that, which is a relative pronoun is modifying a Noun clause- "a majority of international student think". they is clearly referring to nuclear power stations, if not then they has to be followed by "themselves" in case they refers to "a majority of international students". Moreover will followed by be and could followed by be is showing likelyhood of happening of their thinking.
Others options are vague and not even a single stands closer to the corrected one.
hi bro.. sorry i couldn't get exactly wat u meant here..
did if u mean would=could?? 'would' and 'could' have different meanings and have completely different context usages..
1 more thing.. 'will be or could' doesn't look parallel.. 'will be or can be' would have been better..
r u still sticking wid option D??
u got me right. i know would and could have different meaning. But looking at the context they are used here, it makes the same sence. IN D: Will is a definite statement, which means that you use it when you are certain that the future action is going to take place. lets see: Power stations will be made safer... much more surity of happening an event. Power stations could be made safer meaning there is a possibility that the event can occur. So two different context makes sense.
In E, power stations would be made safer. Would here is not as strong as will in D. and almost expresses the same meaning as could be. U got what i was doubting??
u got me right. i know would and could have different meaning. But looking at the context they are used here, it makes the same sence. IN D: Will is a definite statement, which means that you use it when you are certain that the future action is going to take place. lets see: Power stations will be made safer... much more surity of happening an event. Power stations could be made safer meaning there is a possibility that the event can occur. So two different context makes sense.
In E, power stations would be made safer. Would here is not as strong as will in D. and almost expresses the same meaning as could be. U got what i was doubting??
hi mission.. plz review the bold text above.. would it b rite if i say: 'i will definitely do it'.. followed by 'it is a possibility that i would do it'.. if i do say it then i m simply eating my own words.. isnt it??
if it is definite that i will do it then there is no chance of any 'possibility' of me not doing it..
u urself said that 'will' is stronger than 'would'.. if i m very definite(strongly) then there is no chances of any possibility left.. wouldn't ur 'could' after 'will be' make the 'will be' weak???
but as u said 'would' is less strong, so there is chances of a 'possibility'(could)..
hi mission.. plz review the bold text above.. would it b rite if i say: 'i will definitely do it'.. followed by 'it is a possibility that i would do it'.. if i do say it then i m simply eating my own words.. isnt it??
if it is definite that i will do it then there is no chance of any 'possibility' of me not doing it..
u urself said that 'will' is stronger than 'would'.. if i m very definite(strongly) then there is no chances of any possibility left.. wouldn't ur 'could' after 'will be' make the 'will be' weak???
but as u said 'would' is less strong, so there is chances of a 'possibility'(could)..
I would only say to conclude this discussion that the best choice is not the 'ideal" choice. The explanations that our experts have provided do make sense to me although I am still not convinced that this is an ideal sentence. Although given the concepts learned during the course of the discussion if I had to choose a BEST choice out the given 5, it would be 'D'.
The work of mathematician Roger Penrose in the early 1970s, on the geometry of what are called aperiodic tiles, turned out to describe the architecture of a previously unknown class of crystals.
(A) what are called aperiodic tiles, turned out to describe (B) what is called aperiodic tiles, describes (C) aperiodic tiles, describing (D) so-called aperiodic tiles, describe (E) aperiodic tiles, it turned out to describe
The work of mathematician Roger Penrose in the early 1970s, on the geometry of what are called aperiodic tiles, turned out to describe the architecture of a previously unknown class of crystals.
(A) what are called aperiodic tiles, turned out to describe (B) what is called aperiodic tiles, describes (C) aperiodic tiles, describing (D) so-called aperiodic tiles, describe (E) aperiodic tiles, it turned out to describe
Please provide explanation for ur answers..
(A) Correct ; "what are called aperiodic tiles, turned out to describe" ; "are" correct usage of plural. "turned out to" clearly expresses "also served the purpose of" (B) "what is called aperiodic tiles" is incorrect as "is" is singular and "tiles" plural. Should be "what are called aperiodic tiles (C) ungrammatical; reads like "The work, on geometry of aperiodic tiles, describing the architecture...." eliminated (D) "The work of mathematician Roger Penrose" is the subject and singular and "describe" is plural. eliminated (E) "The work of mathematician Roger Penrose...on aperiodic tiles, it turned out to describe"- ungrammatical
1. A peculiar feature of the embryonic mammalian circulatory system is that in the area of the heart the cells adhere to one another, beating in unison and adopting specialized orientations exclusive of one another. (A) beating in unison and adopting (B) they beat in unison while adopting (C) beat in unison, and adopt (D) beating in unison yet adopting (E) even though they beat in unison and adopt
looks like simple parallel structure to me. Let me know your explanations pls.
1. A peculiar feature of the embryonic mammalian circulatory system is that in the area of the heart the cells adhere to one another, beating in unison and adopting specialized orientations exclusive of one another. (A) beating in unison and adopting (B) they beat in unison while adopting (C) beat in unison, and adopt (D) beating in unison yet adopting (E) even though they beat in unison and adopt
looks like simple parallel structure to me. Let me know your explanations pls.
simple one.. compitition is between B and D, with D a clear winner..
simple one.. compitition is between B and D, with D a clear winner..
Bang on .... I choose C attributed to me 'obsessive-compulsive disorder' of choosing parallel structures, so I went for ... adhere to one another,beat in unison, and adopt... all simple verb forms.
B was never in my list. D made sense to me from the standpoint of a meaningful sentence but like I said my OCD pulled me to C. I have to pay attention to the meaning also from now on
1. According to a survey of graduating medical students conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges, minority graduates are nearly four times more likely than are other graduates in planning to practice in socioeconomically deprived areas. (A) minority graduates are nearly four times more likely than are other graduates in planning to practice (B) minority graduates are nearly four times more likely than other graduates who plan on practicing (C) minority graduates are nearly four times as likely as other graduates to plan on practicing (D) it is nearly four times more likely that minority graduates rather than other graduates will plan to practice (E) it is nearly four times as likely for minority graduates than other graduates to plan to practice
2. According to Booker T. Whatley's recent analysis, planting the same crops as are planted on large farms will lead to economic disaster for the small farmer, who should plan a succession of high-value crops that will provide a year-round cash flow. (A) planting the same crops as are planted on large farms will lead to economic disaster for the small farmer, who (B) it will lead to economic disaster for the small farmer to plant the same crops as on the large farms; they (C) economic disaster will result from planting the same crops as large farms to the small farmer, who (D) economic disaster for the small farmer will result from planting the same crops as on the large farms; they (E) the small farmer planting the same crops as are planted on large farms will lead to economic disaster; they
3. According to Henry David Thoreau, the reason a majority is allowed to rule is not that it is more likely to be right, but because it is stronger. (A) the reason a majority is allowed to rule is not that it is more likely to be right, but because it is stronger (B) a majority is allowed to rule not because it is more likely to be right, but because it is stronger (C) the reason for majority rule is not because they are more likely to be right, they are stronger (D) the majority is allowed to rule because of its strength, not because it is more likely to be right (E) the reason why the majority rules is that it is strong, not because it is likely to be right
4. According to his own account, Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi, the sculptor of the Statue of Liberty, modeled the face of the statue like his mother's and the body like his wife's. (A) modeled the face of the statue like his mother's and the body like his wife's (B) modeled the face of the statue after that of his mother and the body after that of his wife (C) modeled the face of the statue like his mother and the body like his wife (D) made the face of the statue after his mother and the body after his wife (E) made the face of the statue look like his mother and the body look like his wife
. Thanks
.
....