<p>The question was: The changes in the employees' benefit plan, especially the increase in insurance fees, has angered the workers and threatened a general strike.</p>
<p>A) has angered the workers and threatened
B) have so angered the workers that they have threatened
C) have angered the workers, threatening
D) has caused such anger among the workers that they have threatened
E) have angered the workers to threaten
Answer:B</p>
<p>Can someone explain why E was wrong?</p>
<p>what form was this, s or w?</p>
<p>E just sounds awkward…“angered” is also acting as “caused” in that sentence, and if you read it aloud to yourself, it should sound wrong. B is the most sensible answer.</p>
<p>^ uh the saying out loud method isn’t helping very much</p>
<p>the sentence makes sense if you say, “The Changes have so angered the workers that they have threatened” so B is correct…the other stuff is extra phrases designed to trick you into thinking something else sounds right…</p>
<p>have angered is awkward, IMO…(E)…</p>
<p>e) “have angered” is awkward?</p>
<p>but </p>
<p>b) “have so angered” is okay?</p>
<p>What’s the grammar behind this?</p>
<p>That’s simply not how the verb “anger” works. One can provoke someone into doing something, but he or she can’t anger someone to do something.</p>
<p>then how do you use the verb anger with an object?</p>
<p><a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anger[/url]”>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anger</a></p>
<p>Like someone said before, anger isn’t a verb used in double construction.</p>
<p>You can’t say “The bear was angered to attack him.”
That’s awkward sounding, and also wrong, because you can’t just stick the infinitive ‘to attack’ in there without a preposition or some other clause.</p>
<p>“then how do you use the verb anger with an object?”</p>
<p>“I angered Bob.”</p>
<p>ok i guess double construction makes the most sense… anger someone to do something doesn’t make sense… anger someone which led him to doing something?</p>
<p>I believe this was confirmed as B by someone else, according to his/her score report. It was a tough question that sparked a pretty fun grammar debate! :D</p>
<p>^ Not quite as much as the “explanation of” question on the big thread. :)</p>
<p>(It’s mostly my fault.)</p>
<p>^ I was actually referring to the initial argument way back in October, but you’re right, the “explanation of” question has probably created more debate.</p>
<p>Can anyone explain to me why it would not be C? I have never heard of the usage of “have so angered” before in my life.</p>
<p>In choice C, “threatening a general strike” is an ambiguously modifying prepositional phrase.</p>
<p>“have so angered… that…” is merely a correlative conjunction derived from “so… that…”</p>