<p>In Germany, foresters discovered that trees killed by acid rain had begun to die four years (earlier, even though the trees had shown no signs of disease then).</p>
<p>The answer is A (No error), but the choice I picked, D, seems fine to me as well, if not better. Choice D states it as (earlier without any signs of disease shown then). Why is this wrong? Is it because it's a run-on sentence?</p>
<p>Wait, is this a CollegeBoard question or a third-party source question? </p>
<p>D seems fine to me, if not better than what is stated in the original sentence. Hmmmm, strange.</p>
<p>Yes, this is a CollegeBoard question, it’s in Practice Test 9, Section 3</p>
<p>don’t overthink, if the original sentence is correct, it usually doesn’t have an error. i think the original sounds clearer, and the comma helps break up the sentence.</p>
<p>CB’s Explanation:</p>
<p>“Choice (D) is vague. It is not clear what the phrase “without any signs of disease” is meant to refer to.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t make much sense to me. Why would “without any signs of disease” need to refer to anything? It’s not a pronoun.</p>
<p>@IronChariot</p>
<p>I just want to know why A is correct and D isn’t, because to me D is more concise and isn’t grammatically incorrect (at least from what I know). Just because it “sounds clearer” isn’t much of an explanation.</p>
<p>by sounds clearer, i agree w/cb. d seemed vague and a clarified that the trees specifically had no disease whereas w/o the clarification it could refer to the rain potentially</p>