A question about punctuation

<p>I'm wondering about the explanations of CB.</p>

<p>The fruit fly is often used to study genetic mechanisms, because it reproduces rapidly scientists can observe the effects of experiments on several generations.</p>

<p>(A) mechanisms, because it reproduces rapidly
(B) mechanisms, since it reproduces rapidly,
(C) mechanisms, since, with its rapid reproduction,</p>

<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer A :<br>
Choice (A) involves improper coordination. Two complete thoughts ("The fruit fly...mechanisms" and "because...generations") are joined by only a comma.</p>

<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer B :<br>
Choice (B) involves improper coordination. Two complete thoughts ("The fruit fly...mechanisms" and "since...generations") are joined by only a comma.</p>

<p>Explanation for Incorrect Answer C :<br>
Choice (C) involves incorrect punctuation. The subordinating work "since" should not be preceded by a comma.</p>

<p>I wonder if the explanation for C is correct. It say that since should not be preceded by a comma ???
Is "...mechanisms since, with its rapid reprodution, scientists ..." is correct ???
If it is, so what about (A) ???</p>

<p>I want to ask one more question: What is the rules of punctuation when dealing with three-clause sentence ?
For example, the sentence "Bats and mosquitoes come out at twilight, and the bats would look for mosquitoes and the mosquitoes would look for people." is changed into "..the bats to look for mosquitoes and the mosquitoes to look.."</p>

<p>So what is the answer then?</p>

<p>The answer is another choice.
But I'm still curious about the explanation</p>

<p>The CB explanation is sort of correct. Choice C does contain a comma problem. The rule is that, if you have an adverb clause <em>after</em> the main clause, you don't need a comma. If you have an adverb clause <em>before</em> the main clause, then you do need a comma. So you'd write, "Since I was hungry, I ate a sandwich," but "I ate a sandwich since I was hungry." It's technically incorrect to put a comma in the second sentence, although expert prose writers make some version of this "error" all the time.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I find CB's explanation poor. The comma is the least of the problems with choice C. Take a look at choice C with the comma problem corrected:</p>

<p>"The fruit fly is often used to study genetic mechanisms since, with its rapid reproduction, scientists can observe the effects of experiments on several generations."</p>

<p>Wha. . . ? Just what function is the word "with" performing in this sentence? Are the scientists observing their experiments "with the rapid reproductions of the fruit flies"? What would that even mean?</p>

<p>Presumably, the word "with" is being used here to tell us why something is true: it's a synonym for "because of." But "with" cannot directly express cause-and-effect relationships like this.</p>

<p>The reason that choice C might sort of sound okay to you is that the word "with" can very rarely be used to form a phrase that tell us <em>under what circumstances</em> the main clause is taking place:</p>

<p>"With all the rain, they had to move the party indoors" = "Under the circumstances of the rain, they had to move the party indoors."</p>

<p>At first glance, it seems that the phrase beginning "with" is just giving a reason for the main clause, but its function is a little bit more complicated than that. <em>Under what circumstances</em> is not always the same thing as <em>why": in fact, it usually isn't, and it isn't in choice C. The rapid reproductions of the fruit flies are not a *circumstance in which</em> the scientists can observe their experiments, so we can't use "with."</p>

<p>I'm going in to depth about the correct adverbial use of "with" here because I've seen it tested more than once on real CB exams (although never adequately addressed by whoever is writing the CB explanations).</p>

<p>This is something I've noticed before with CB explanations: they are usually not wrong, but they are often not that helpful, either, and they often don't go to the heart of the wrong answer choice. I don't know who's writing them, but I don't think it's a linguist or a usage expert.</p>