<p>A(Citing) increasing labor costs, the reluctance B(of many people) to fly, and C(unseasonably) cool weather, tourism analysts have been D(cautious not) to expect a great season.</p>
<p>Is 'cautious not' a double negative?</p>
<p>A(Citing) increasing labor costs, the reluctance B(of many people) to fly, and C(unseasonably) cool weather, tourism analysts have been D(cautious not) to expect a great season.</p>
<p>Is 'cautious not' a double negative?</p>
<p>yes. You can even tell this is a double negative if you understand how “cautious not” is being used in the sentence; with it, the sentence doesn’t make any sense but w/o the not, the sentence does make sense.</p>
<p>“Cautious not to XXXX” is a perfectly acceptable construction. It’s not a double negative at all.</p>
<p>The sentence would make no sense if it said " cautious " only, they mention reluctance and unseasonable weather which is an omen for a bad season AKA " cautious not to expect a great season" .</p>
<p>Shouldnt the answer be A? </p>
<p>correct me if im wrong</p>
<p>It’s not A because “citing” is modifying the tourism analysts which makes sense.</p>
<p>“cautious not” does not make sense because let’s say we replace the word “cautious” with the word “suspicious” which are synonyms we can all agree. In the sentence, they describe unseasonably cool weather, the labor costs, and the people reluctant to flying as bad signs of an upcoming season. So, you would be SUSPICIOUS TO EXPECT A GREAT SEASON. If tourism analysts were suspicious NOT to expect a great season, that means they expected it to be a great season.</p>
<p>I say the answer is D. Silverturtle? Crazybandit? thoughts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“cautious not to” is fine.</p>
<p>^why? I don’t agree.</p>
<p>rofl, cautious and suspicious are totally different, what have u been smoking brah</p>
<p>errr i didnt mean A as the answer i think its C but im not sure</p>
<p>Cautious doesn’t mean suspicious in this case (or really ever) it means careful. As in “careful not to expect a great season.”</p>
<p>^this website seems to disagree: [Suspicious</a> Synonyms, Suspicious Antonyms | Thesaurus.com](<a href=“SUSPICIOUS Synonyms: 90 Synonyms & Antonyms for SUSPICIOUS | Thesaurus.com”>SUSPICIOUS Synonyms: 90 Synonyms & Antonyms for SUSPICIOUS | Thesaurus.com)</p>
<p>@loco—C is not the answer either. “unseasonably”, an adverb, correctly modifies the adjective “cool”. What are you smoking brah?</p>
<p>We’re looking for synonyms for “cautious,” and “suspicious” isn’t one of them.</p>
<p>[Cautious</a> Synonyms, Cautious Antonyms | Thesaurus.com](<a href=“http://thesaurus.com/browse/cautious]Cautious”>CAUTIOUS Synonyms: 53 Synonyms & Antonyms for CAUTIOUS | Thesaurus.com)</p>
<p>Ok this argument is getting out of tangent. I just reread the sentence with caution and it makes sense. The answer is E. All other choices fit.</p>
<p>lol that makes sense, i forgot about E as he didnt mention it</p>
<p>p.s. i smoke pot, u mad?</p>
<p>“cautious not” is a totally fine phrase, except it doesn’t fit in the meaning of the sentence.</p>
<p>Answer is E, no error guys =(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He didn’t have to. You should know by now.</p>
<p>The sentence is not even complete. None of the parts A, B or C modify tourism analysts. Something like “Due to” is missing in the beginning of the sentence; without it, the sentence makes no sense.</p>
<p>Due to is nonstandard when it starts a sentence.
Citing means “giving blah blah blah as reasons,” which functions the same as “due to” would have–it introduces the following items as justification.
And cautious not to is not a double negative because the word cautious is neither positive nor negative (if you don’t apply that SC charge nonsense).</p>