Does anyone have an idea why the following ACT English answer is incorrect?
In the late 1800s, clothing store owner, Levi Strauss patented the practice of putting rivets, tiny metal studs, on the stress points of men’s “wasit overalls.”
The underlined portion of the question is “owner, Levi Strauss”
My thought is that “clothing store owner” could be considered a non-essential clause and thus surrounding it with commas could be ok.
Thoughts?
P.S. In the correct answer the comma after the word “owner” is removed
Shouldn’t it be this? (Correct me if I am wrong)
In the late 1800s, clothing store owner Levi Strauss patented the practice of putting rivets, tiny metal studs, on the stress points of men’s “wasit overalls.”
Making “Clothing store owner” a non-essential clause is very awkward. If Clothing store owner came before Levi Strauss, then it might make sense, depending on the context. In this sentence here, when you make “clothing store owner” as non-essential, readers might be confused because they don’t know which clothing store owner they are referring to. Is it Levi? Or is it someone else? Do you see what I am saying?
Hope this helps.
^Yes, in the correct answer the comma after the word “owner” is removed