<p>Silverturtle replied before:
2) Aerial photography is thought to be the most efficent technique to gather accurate information about the use of the land.</p>
<p>The answer is C. </p>
<p>Some might just claim that “technique of [something]” is the proper idiom and, accordingly, that following “technique” with an infinitive is merely unidiomatic; but I’ll try to give a reason for this.</p>
<p>“to gather” could be one of two things: either it’s the infinitive of “gather,” or it’s an abbreviated form of “in order to gather.” Because “to gather” is not being used as a noun phrase (as in “To gather trash is to be a good citizen”) or as part of a greater verb phrase (as in “I want to gather the trash”), we know that the intended meaning is “in order to gather.” And so we have:</p>
<p>“Aerial photography is thought to be the most efficient technique in order to gather accurate information about the use of land.” </p>
<p>Because “in order to” signals a dependent clause, we should be able to move this subordinating clause in front of the independent clause and leave the meaning unchanged:</p>
<p>“In order to gather accurate information about the use of land, aerial photography is thought to be the most efficient technique.”</p>
<p>First of all, the sentence now doesn’t tell explicitly or directly what the technique is designed to do. Moreover, the sentence now means that aerial photography is considered (i.e., the passive “thought to be”) an efficient technique so that one can gather accurate information. This is illogical. It needs to be “of gathering.” </p>
<p>My Question
what about such a sentence “Plating is considered the best way to prevent rotting.”
Does it also involve confusion? “the way to do” sounds alright</p>
<p>For a sentence like : I think she has a tendency to forget things.
how do we judege whether “to forget” belongs to a greater phrase “tendency to do”
or means “in order to”
THX for any clarification</p>
<p>By using electromagnetic sensors (to record) the frequency of lighting strikes (throughout) the United States, meteorologists have (determined that) (it occurs) at the rate of 2,000 per hour. (No Error)</p>
<p>I put No Error…but apparently D is an error. Isn’t D correct?..isn’t ‘it’ referring to the frequency, which is singular? I basically omitted the “of lighting strikes” phrase so I though there was NO ERROR.</p>
<p>ALSO, </p>
<p>what is the difference between:
Although one of the MOST frequently taught of William Faulkner’s works, Light in August remains…
Although one of the MORE frequently taught of William Faulkner’s works, Light in August remains…</p>
<p>“it” cannot logically refer to “frequency” because a frequency does not occur at a rate; it is the rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the most literal sense, “one of the more frequently taught…works” just means that the work is taught more than most works are. “one of the most frequently taught…works” implies that the work belongs to a category of works that are taught more than all other works; how inclusive this category is is not indicated. In practice, they are used similarly, with “one of the most” usually having more emphasis than “one of the more.”</p>
<p>^so, ‘it occurs’ should be replaced with ‘they occur’? </p>
<p>Also, was my logic correct though (to omit the phrase ‘of lighting strikes’)? Whenever I do W MC q’s I always omit those phrases automatically when I read (because they always have tricks, etc. So, should I not be doing that? Is this q. just an odd case? (I always thought that the verb ALWAYS corresponded with the noun OUTSIDE of the phrase…have I been wrong…?)</p>
<p>Just a question: can someone explain to me what the first part of the sentence (before the comma) means?</p>
<p>When Catherine the Great ahd a magnificent dinner service of Sevres porcelain made for her, she was scandalized by its great cost, which became the subject of prolonged controversy.</p>
No, your logic was not correct in that context, but, in general, it can be correct. Modifying phrases can be omitted (or put in parentheses, for the purpose of retaining meaning), like prepositional phrases, adverbs, etc. A lot of the time, seemingly ambiguous or problematic referents and antecedents are really not so. The only way the phrase “frequency of lighting strikes” would run merely on “frequency” would be by using it with a verb–e.g., the frequency [of lighting strikes] is. . . ." (as opposed to are). Otherwise you just use logic (consider the meaning of the sentence) to figure out which antecedent is the correct one.</p>
A “dinner service” is a set (typically fancy) of plates, bowls, and other dinnerware used by people to eat dinner. One was made out of Sevres porcelain (a type of material) for Catherine the Great, but she had to pay a lot for it so she was shocked; her shock was the subject of a lot of controversy.</p>
<p>How do you know when a pronoun is ambiguous or not? Like in this sentence…</p>
<p>The tree’s leaves and bark [possess] medicinal qualities [that include] reducing fever, but [they are] highly perishable and thus not available in America.</p>
<p>In this case couldn’t they be ambiguous because there are two plural entities before it? The first being “leaves and bark” and the second “qualities”. However, the correct answer is No Error… I’m not really sure how to tell when the ambiguous pronoun is a valid argument.</p>
<p>There is no ambiguous pronoun in that sentence. A pronoun isn’t automatically ambiguous just because there are two plural entities before it. The part that reads “…they are highly perishable and thus not available in America” is referring to the leaves and bark, not the medicinal qualities of the leaves and bark. </p>
<p>It makes no sense to state that the medicinal qualities of the trees and bark are highly perishable and thus not available in America. It does, however, make sense that the leaves and bark are highly perishable and thus not available in America.</p>
<p>You know when a pronoun is ambiguous when you can’t figure out what a specific pronoun is referring to:</p>
<p>
The pronoun “his” can refer to either Bob or Fred in this situation, as they are both men.</p>
<p>You make the pronoun less ambiguous by rewriting the above statement as such:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the SAT example you provided, the pronoun “they” is clearly referring to the leaves and bark.</p>
<p>1) (We had never seen) anything like this style of architecture before, we thought we were looking at giant sculptures, not buildings.</p>
<p>D)Never having seen
E)Never seeing</p>
<p>Why is E wrong?</p>
<p>2) (There is speculation that the name “Wendy” was) the invention of J.M. Barrie who created a character by that name for his famous play Peter Pan.</p>
<p>A) As is
E) The name “Wendy” by some speculation</p>
<p>a) i have never seen a ghost before
b) i never seeing a ghost before</p>
<p>which one do you think is correct? obviously (a). </p>
<p>‘never seeing’ is present continuous and, since the sentence you are referring to, contains ‘before’ it means that only the present perfect tense is appropriate in this context. thats why ‘never having seen’ is correct and ‘never seeing’ is wrong.</p>
<p>Bacteria, A(a singled celled microorganism) with no nucleus, cause disease B(by producing) toxins and C(are distinguished) from viruses by their ability to exist D(independently of) other living cells.
^ is the answer D? Should it be ‘independently from’?</p>
<ol>
<li>The businessman A(is) the head B(of a company) C(that has been) investigated by authorities D(in the latest) crackdown of corporate fund.</li>
</ol>
<p>^ Is the answer C? Should it be ‘that had been’?</p>
<p>Science fiction mirrors the A(apprehensions) and anticipations of society; B(it) reflects C(both) our hopes and fears D(concerning) the advance of technology.</p>
<p>^is it B? Since there’s a semi-colon, you can’t use ‘it’, right?</p>
<p>The sucess of George Washington’s program A(for reforming) weights and measures, Andro Linklater B(argues), C(were) essential D(to the eventual) emergence of a consumer economy.
^E?</p>
A is the answer. “Bacteria” is plural (the singular form is “bacterium”). You can tell that this is true from the verb “cause,” which is plural (the singular form is “causes”). “[A] single celled microorganism” renames bacteria, so it also has to be plural–single celled microorganisms, not a single celled microorganism.</p>
<p>D is not the answer; “independently of,” not “independently from,” is grammatically correct.
No. When you see the present perfect tense (“has been investigated”), it is implied that the action (the investigation) occurred in the past but still affects the present. The fact that the sentence is even mentioning the investigation instead of just saying that the businessman is the head of a company means that the investigation is still relevant to the company.</p>
<p>The past perfect tense (“had been investigated”) implies that the investigation took place in the past but stopped being influential in the past as well. It is sometimes used to distinguish between two past events: “I ate food that had been cooked thoroughly.” This sentence describes two past events, the eating and the cooking. The cooking took place before the eating did. There is no past tense in the original sentence that we were talking about, so it would be incorrect to use the past perfect.
Why can’t we use “it”? The semicolon allows you to start a new sentence–a clause. When two sentences or clauses are very closely related, the subject of the second clause (“it”) is implied to be the subject of the first clause (“science fiction”). Plus, there is no other singular noun in the first clause, so there is absolutely no chance for “it” to be an ambiguous pronoun. There is no error in the sentence.</p>