<p>1) The difference between Liebniz and Schopenhauer is that the former is optimistic; the latter, pessimistic.</p>
<p>This sentence is apparently correct as is. </p>
<p>But, I don't understand why a semicolon is used. The semicolon isn't separating two independent clauses.</p>
<p>2) I narrowed this down to B and D. But why wouldn't the answer be D? Isn't D the more direct way to say the same thing as B says? Or is "distressed about" an idiom error? </p>
<p>Having revised her dissertation with some care, that her thesis advisor rejected the changes distressed her greatly.</p>
<p>(A) that her thesis advisor rejected the changes dis-tressed her greatly
(B) she found her thesis advisor’s rejection of the
changes greatly distressing
(C) her thesis advisor’s rejection of the changes
was a great distress
(D) she was greatly distressed about her thesis
advisor rejecting the changes
(E) her distress at her thesis advisor’s rejection of
the changes was great</p>
<p>3) "...in 1900, rubber tires had been a novelty." </p>
<p>Shouldn't it be novelty be changed to novelties, even though novelty is not underlined?<br>
</p>
<p>I’m not “800” good at these things, but I’ll try to give my opinions…</p>
<h1>1- I believe those are 2 separate independent clauses. “The latter, pessimistic.” - is a noun being described by an adjective, which is an independent clause, right?</h1>
<h1>2- this one is tricky… I would hope it’s a level 5 for sure. I would probably guess B just because it sounds a little bit better to have a verb follow a “having blah blah blah” clause. Instead of “she was” which is more of an adjective phrase, B says that “she found”, which is more verby… Sorry I’m just going by ear here lmao…</h1>
<h1>3- “In 1900, rubber tires had been a novelty.” and - “In 1900, rubber tires were novelties.” are both correct</h1>
<p>Not super sure about 1 as I myself am unsure about semicolon usage</p>
<ol>
<li>It is B because the beginning has a dangling modifier, so you should be like “who revised the dissertation”, and the answer in B says “…found her thesis advisor’s rejection…”.</li>
</ol>
<p>herozero1234: D also corrects the danging modifier. Wouldn’t it also fit? </p>
<p>jd989898: First, I appreciate your opinions! I see your point on #1. “The latter, pessimistic,” is likely an independent clause as it has both a subject and an predicate. It is a very laconic sentence though :D! </p>
<p>The book agrees with you, B is the answer. </p>
<p>And thanks for confirming that both versions are correct! But can someone provide a technical reason as to why?</p>
<p>SilverAurora is right about #1. For #2, choice D is objectively wrong because “rejecting the changes” is a gerund and takes the possessive: “her thesis advisor**'s** rejecting the changes.” Without context, I can’t say for sure on #3, but I’m guessing that the correct answer is “were a novelty”–simple past tense. “Novelty” is singular because rubber tires as a collective product were new and unusual, not each rubber tire individually.</p>