<p>Hey guys, I was wondering if you can help me out with this question I encountered on the McGraw Hill's English practice test</p>
<p>The African sees himself as the dominant creature not to be bothered by the "dog but" nevertheless responsible for providing for it.</p>
<p>A. NO CHANGE
B. dog; but
C. dog, but
D. dog. But</p>
<p>I said A. No Change, because the 'but' is separating independent and depending phrases. Since the second part 'nevertheless responsible for providing for it' is not an independent phrase, it shouldn't require a comma + conjunction (since comma + conjunction separates independent phrases).
The books says it's C. dog, but - because "The 'but' heads information that is part of the clause. Answer A may be eliminated because a comma is necessary before the 'but'"</p>
<p>Can someone explain this to me, or is the book wrong?</p>
<p>It just makes more sense to me; sorry I didn’t explain this clearer. The following quote came from a discussion between a friend of mine and I.</p>
<p>"The rule I use is that commas should be implemented where they would help clarify a situation. The ‘cheater’s rule’ is that wherever you would pause when you read the sentence, there should be a comma. I agree with C, but if I could rewrite the sentence, it would say this:</p>
<p>The African sees himself as the dominant creature – not to be bothered by the dog, but nevertheless responsible for providing for it.</p>
<p>I say this because everything after the word ‘creature’ acts as a definition for ‘dominant creature.’ It’s a poorly written question, but C appears to be the most correct."</p>
<p>The phrase “not to be bothered by the ‘dog but’ nevertheless responsible for providing for it” is describing “the dominant creature,” so by seperating the sentence with the dash, she regroups the sentence for the sake of clarity. When you look at it this way, it’s somewhat like a “not only… but also…” sentence structure, in which I would choose to add a comma before “but also” (i.e. “A time not for words, but for action” quoted from Strunk and White on the website here: [Composition</a>. Strunk, William, Jr. 1918. Elements of Style](<a href=“Authors - Collection at Bartleby.com”>III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION - Collection at Bartleby.com))</p>
<p>These are just our personal opinions. It was my fault not to explain my reasoning in my first post, but you really didn’t have to be rude about it.</p>
<p>Yes, there are many writers who employ unnecessary commas to better convey their stylistic intentions. However, the most grammatical election is always to use as few commas as possible while still being grammatical. No comma is necessary because the coordinating conjunction is not linking to a clause; therefore, not using a comma is the most economical option. In the context of standardized test questions for which one must decide what punctuation is appropriate, it is simply wrong to use commas that would otherwise only be acceptable for purely stylistic reasons; we do not formulate rules for when commas must not be used, so using one, even when the result is an awkwardly broken up phrase, is not technically explicitly prohibited by any grammatical rule. (A) is clearly and objectively the best answer to this question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, so it’s a good thing that I wasn’t rude. I do hope, however, that you didn’t make the mistake of equating verbal irony with rudeness.</p>
<p>OP just so you know the McGraw Hill books are horrible and you should never use them. Go for PR, The Real ACT or for a challenge you can go with Barron’s.</p>