<p>yeah this is correct on the assumption that tthe sisters were objects in the first part because they were the ones recieving the act of being parted</p>
<p>AHHH I freaking hate who/whom questions..... I answered no change which was who/who.... I tried substituting "he" or "they" and it fit much better than "him" or "them" .... at least that's what I think...
Dangit, I think I got two wrong on English :( Pretty sure I still have a 35 though...</p>
<p>you know point ahead and point both suck
i could be wrong, but think about it
which sounds worse?</p>
<p>"I never talked to him again from that point on."
"I never talked to him again from that point forward."
"I never talked to him again from that point ahead."
"I never talked to him again from that point."</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but it seems to me that just "point" sounds worse than "point ahead" even though they both are pretty bad</p>
<p>its defintely point ahead says my english M.S. mother</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that it's who/who as it's being used as the subject. The verb phrase is "could be parted." Like the sentence </p>
<p>"She could be parted."</p>
<p>She is the subject, not an object.</p>
<p>Also to test my theory I did this in google:</p>
<p>"who</a> could not be" - Google Search Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for "who could not be". (0.08 seconds) </p>
<p>"whom</a> could not be" - Google Search Results 1 - 10 of about 697 for "whom could not be". (0.12 seconds)</p>
<p>The phrase "who could not be" has almost a million more results than "whom could not be"</p>
<p>Also I don't get how we're allowed to discuss questions here? I thought that was against the ACT rules because of that thing you have to sign at the end?</p>
<p>dude daman...its who not WHOM....if you put him in the place for that, the sentence doesn't make sense...it has to be who...</p>
<p>It's "who could not be" because 'who' is the subject of whatever kind of phrase thingy that is.</p>
<p>I didn't have this test version, either, so I'm unbiased. :D</p>
<p>well for the above post u have to factor in the fact that a lot of those people dont care for the use of whom. i bet even in a proper context there would be more whos.</p>
<p>dang wow the more i think about this the more i second guesss myself.</p>
<p>wat did you guys put for the novel, the literary form or history or w/e? it was a rhetorical strategy one. like yes or no type? i put yes.</p>
<p>whom could be parted is correct i think?
becuz they are the one who receives the action;thus "whom" would be proper.
if it was them doing the action like "who parted", then u would use who cuz then they are doing the action(they parted).</p>
<p>this is how i thought but maybe im wrong.</p>
<p>But you would say, for example:</p>
<p>WE could go to the store, not US could go to the store.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, not ME could be wrong.</p>
<p>THEY could see us, not THEM could see us.</p>
<p>WHO could that be? not WHOM could that be?</p>
<p>Etc.</p>
<p>What about that question about with somebodys theorem.... was it good to add the statement in parenthesis? I said it was....</p>
<p>no it was already clearly identified in the passage because it was named after the person whose name had been mentioned before.....</p>
<p>did you all change "others" to "Africans, the Incas, and the Chinese" or whatever?</p>
<p>No change....takes away from the focus of the paragraph.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the question about plants' and plant's? Like</p>
<p>other two plants'/plant's</p>
<p>Are you sure its repetitive? Ughhhh... goodbye 36.....</p>
<p>i'm pretty sure that its plants' because its plural and it has possession.</p>
<p>i put plants'</p>
<p>
[quote]
wat did you guys put for the novel, the literary form or history or w/e? it was a rhetorical strategy one. like yes or no type? i put yes.
[/quote]
i put no..i believe it was D</p>
<p>ok idk about you guys, but i've always been taught that WHOM is usually substituted for HIM. ex. </p>
<p>is it chuck whom is at the door?</p>
<p>it's an alternate way to say who, at least that's what i've always been taught. that one left me wondering for a minute though.</p>
<p>change "others" to "Africans, the Incas, and the Chinese" bc it suppost the first part of paragraph correct?</p>