<p>That wouldn’t make sense. “Taught” would have to come after “be,” as in “repeated calls that curricula be wholly or partly taught” or “…be taught wholly or partly.” </p>
<p>The answer choices don’t seem to befit revision. I take back my previous post (#399) because it doesn’t make sense. The calls weren’t of disapproval; they were suggestions, “calls that the curricula be taught diversely,” so to speak.</p>
<p>OK, the corrected sentence is:</p>
<p>“…the presence of a culturally diverse population has led to repeated calls for curricula taught wholly or partly in languages other than English.”</p>
<p>“that” is incorrect because it sets up a clause, which the sentence can’t make. “for” extends the object “curricula [that are] taught wholly or partly in languages other than English.”</p>
<p>It is “curricula that are taught,” not “curricula that were taught” because the curricula don’t exist yet. It is a suggestion so you use the subjunctive “are” (similar to “are to be”)</p>
<p>note: seems that the structure “calls that,” in which “calls” is a noun, is not correct. It should be “calls to [e.g., an organization]” or “calls for [e.g., a suggestion]”</p>
<p>This sentence’s structure is the same as that of “…my desire for an ice cream cone smothered with sprinkles”</p>
<p>right.“for” makes the sentence much better, but i still think “that” would work.</p>
<p>consider this:
Legislation in the Canadian province of Ontario requires of both public and private employers that pay [be the same for jobs historically held by women as for jobs requiring comparable skill that are usually held by men].</p>
<p>(A) that pay be the same for jobs historically held by women as for jobs requiring comparable skill that are
(B) that pay for jobs historically held by women should be the same as for a job requiring comparable skills
(C) to pay the same in jobs historically held by women as in jobs of comparable skill that are
(D) to pay the same regardless of whether a job was historically held by women or is one demanding comparable skills
(E) to pay as much for jobs historically held by women as for a job demanding comparable skills</p>
<p>the answer is A.</p>
<p>Do you think the two are in any way similar?</p>
<p>“that pay be the same” VS “that cirricula taught be in”</p>
<p>Yeah, they are the same thing. The “be” is in the subjunctive, which is used to suggest something (“it has caused a lot of problems, so it is to be destroyed”)</p>
<p>so it seems to me both way would be OK?</p>
<p>In many large cities in the United States, the presence of a [culturally] diverse population [has led] to repeated calls [that] curricula taught [wholly or partly] in languages other than English. No error</p>
<p>C or D then?</p>
<p>It is C. “that” should be “for.”</p>
<p>“the calls for the curricula taught in…” is correct.
“the calls that the curricula be taught” is incorrect because “that” only expresses a purpose or suggestion when it follows a statement (“hold it up so that everyone can see it”), not a noun. </p>
<p>You can say “I asked that the curricula be taught” because “asked” is a verb (“do X so that Y happens”). You can’t say “the question that the curricula be taught” because there is no noun preceding “that.”</p>
<p>“call” is being used as “a strong prompting” or “a loud scream”
CORRECT: “I made a call for Mary” (I screamed at Mary so that she could hear me)
CORRECT: “I made a call to 911”
INCORRECT: “I made a call that the police come”
CORRECT: “I made a call for the 911 to come”
INCORRECT: “a scream that he help me”
CORRECT: “a scream for him to help me”</p>
<p>You have an “urge for food” or an “urge to eat,” not an “urge that you eat.” If you use a clause (which has a verb), you may say you have an “urge that is making you want to eat.”</p>
<p>Note: A google search for “calls that he be” (in quotation marks) yields 250,000 results while “calls for him to be” yields 15 million.</p>
<p>“calls for the curricula taught in…” is correct.</p>
<p>but renlandrew was saying sth different i think:</p>
<p>he was saying:
“calls that curricula (that are) taught be in” but not
“the calls that the curricula be taught”</p>
<p>thank you so much for the last reply, but here’s one more :</p>
<p>Numerous (A. collections of ) short stories include works by Isaac Bashevis Singer who, (B. despite living) in the United States for more than fifty years, (C. continued) (D. to write) primarily in Yiddish.</p>
<p>I’d say the answer is B, change to ‘despite having lived’.
But our little Barron here says its E, no error.
help!!</p>
<p>if it were written as “despite having lived”, C would have to be changed to “continues”.</p>
<p>the original sentence should be interpreted as " … Singer who, despite (his) living in the US…"</p>
<p>“living”, a gerund, here serves the function of a noun, since despite normally follows a noun</p>
<p>If any signer of the Constitution (was) to return to life, (for a day), his opinion (of) our amendments (would be) interesting.</p>
<p>How is the answer (was)?</p>
<hr>
<p>In spite of Tom wanting to study, his sister made him wash the dishes.</p>
<p>How is this rewrite correct:
In spite of Tom’s wanting to study, his sister made him wash the dishes.</p>
<p>bumping this</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“would” indicates the future unreal conditional tense. The subjunctive must be used: “If any signer of the Constitution were to return to life…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“wanting” is a gerund – a noun. Nouns take possessive modifiers, so “Tom” needs to be possessive.</p>
<p>The famous filmmaker had a tendency of changing his recollections, perhaps out of boredom at having to tell interviewers the same story over and over.</p>
<p>The television station has received many complaints about the clothing advertisements, which some viewers condemn to be tasteless.</p>
<p>explanations please?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“tendency” is one of those abstract nouns that take infinitive complements. See [Gerunds</a> and Infinitives: Their Noun Roles](<a href=“http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/gerunds.htm]Gerunds”>http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/gerunds.htm).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One says, “Consider to be” and “Condemn as.”</p>
<p>At the conclusion of the novel The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway, a young Midwestener recently (arrived to) New York, (moodily) (watches) the blinking green light at the tip of Long Island.</p>
<p>Error is A. And why should it be replaced with “arrived in”? “arrived” sounds wrong either way.</p>
<p>Mediators were standing by, prepared (to intervene in) the labor dispute (even though) both sides (had refused) earlier offers (for) assistance. </p>
<p>Why is error D? I thought it was A and that it should be “intervene with”.</p>
<p>To arrive is to reach a destination, which means you finished your journey. You are no longer going or travelling to the place; you are now in the place, so you say you “arrive in a place.” You are in the place of your arrival.</p>
<p>“Arrived” is used as an adjective in this sense. If you say “I ate an apple,” you refer to the apple as “an apple recently eaten,” where “eaten” is an adjective describing the apple.</p>
<p>“a man recently arrived in New York” is a noun phrase (basically a noun + an adjective) that modifies “Nick Carraway”</p>
<p>“…Nick Carraway, (a young Midwesterner recently arrived in New York), moodily watches…”
The noun phrase in the parentheses modifies the subject “Nick Carraway.” If you ignore it, you can see that the sentence essentially reads “Nick Carraway moodily watches…”</p>
<p>2) You are in a dispute if you are having a dispute. So you intervene in a dispute if you intervene while being in a dispute. Basically you are in the dispute while you are intervening, so therefore you are intervening in the dispute. It is correct.</p>
<p>D is the error because “for” should be “of.”</p>
<p>An offer is an act of offering. In the phrase “offer of X,” “X” describes what is being offered.</p>
<p>“the EATING of the APPLE” = the apple is being eaten, was eaten, etc.
“the KILLING of the FAMILY” = the family was killed, is being killed, etc.
“the OFFERING of ASSISTANCE” = assistance is being offered, was offered, etc.</p>
<p>“EATING,” “KILLING,” and “OFFERS/OFFERING” are ACTIONS; they are the ACTS of eating and killing.</p>
<ol>
<li>The prevailing attitude in seventeenth-century England was that schools and universities (should teach nothing that would) discredit the established religion or the authority of kings and magistrates.</li>
</ol>
<p>A. should teach nothing that would.
B. should teach nothing that will
C. are to teach nothing that would
D. should only teach that which will not
E. shall teach nothing that will</p>
<p>Why is the answer A and how would you eliminate the others?</p>
<ol>
<li>The survival of many species of marine life may depend on both the enforcement of waste-disposal regulations (and the education of the public) about the fragility of ocean resources.</li>
</ol>
<p>A. and the education of the public
C. and the public being educated.</p>
<p>I know A is the answer because of parallelism with “enforcement” and “education” both being nouns, but the “education of the public” sounds weird. Doesn’t it depend on the public being educated about it not its current education of it?</p>