<p>can anybody help me with these two?</p>
<ol>
<li>“(Nearly all) of the photographers for the project (agree) that of the two prints (being considered), Morton’s is the (more appropriate)”</li>
</ol>
<p>why is there ‘no error’ ?</p>
<ol>
<li>The new mechanism, which (uses) automated sensors (in the controlling of) the entire assembly line, (should improve) the efficiency of the entire operation.</li>
</ol>
<p>Why can’t we say ‘in the controlling of’?</p>
<p>^
<ol>
<li>I think ‘in the controlling of’ sounds passive and could be avoided by substituting in “to control”?</li>
</ol>
<p>^2. I’m thinking unidiomatic?</p>
<p>Perhaps “Because of” would be a better term, though there is a subtle difference betwen “because of” and “due to”.</p>
<p>Using “citing” as a reason or cause is definitely new; I’ve never seen it on a collegeboard question when I did the exams few years ago.</p>
<p>Citing increasing labor costs, the reluctance of many people to fly, and unseasonably cool weather, tourism analysts have been cautious not to expect a great season.</p>
<p>I think the error is D. It should say …tourist analysts have been cautious to expect a great season.</p>
<p>i just dont get the original sentence, isnt " increasing labor costs" good for tourism? doesnt this phrase mean that workers are gaining more money than before?</p>
<p>Increasing labor costs are good for the workers, but bad for the corporate bottom line. That’s what the analysts are concerned about.</p>
<p>The use of “cautious not to expect” is bad writing, at the least. It would be improved by something like “cautious about predicting.”</p>
<p>The whole sentence is pretty bad, actually.</p>
<p>oh, my reasoning was that if people earned more money they would be able to travel more, which seemed contradictive amongst the other facts.</p>
<p>and also, if businesses have less money due to paying their workers more, how would this affect tourism? less attractions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is more of an economics question but yes, because travel agencies have to pay their workers more, their production costs rise and therefore must compensate by, among other ways, raising prices–an action that most probably will repel would have been customers who do not value the travel more than the listed price.</p>
<p>That’s an oversimplified analysis and is in any case irrelevant to the SAT.</p>
<p>
Not it itself. Because of plummeting prices, consumers have been cautious not to let their friends pass up on value deals unknowingly.</p>
<p>The word “not” is a weak but grammatical word for negation–most phrases with not can be replaced with a combination of the elimination of not and the replacement of the word not had modified with an antonym (e.g., not pass with fail, not too long with short). In the sentence from the SATs, cautious not to can be replaced with reluctant to…</p>
<p>and in the controlling of is not ungrammatical but is probably wrong because the SAT considers the phrase verbose. Controlling is also a useless gerund because control is a better noun meaning the same thing, so “under the control” (still a prepositional phrase but fails to fix the unavoidable passive construction) is a suitable substitute.</p>
<p>what question is this from (which test)</p>
<p>^ Definitely from a non CB source, i.e. useless crap like princeton review/barrons/kaplan.</p>
<p>guys? What about this question?:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cuz its idiomatic to say “use X to Y”, in this case, “use sensors to control”</p>