<p>Ok, can someone explain this to me? </p>
<p>Twice as many bird species inhabit Ecuador (as in) North America.
a) AS IN
b) AS INHABIT
c) INSTEAD OF IN
d) WHEN COMPARED TO
d) THAN </p>
<p>So, the answer is B because you need to reemphasize INHABIT? </p>
<p>Does anyone know what cause-effect relationship sentence structures are supposed to be like?</p>
<p>Another question:
Theodore Roosevelt was not just a great reformer; he was also a great president.
Ok, on this question, I only chose the original sentence because the other ones seemed to have errors in clarity, etc.</p>
<p>One option though, was this:
Theodore Roosevelt was not just a great reformer; but also a great president.
—> would this sentence be correct if the semicolon was a comma, or was just taken out?</p>
<p>To answer your second question, yes I think the sentence would be correct if the semicolon was replaced with a comma. I might be wrong though because I think I heard for a sentence to end with “, but also” it must have “not only” in the beginning.</p>
<p>^^I believe that the second option is not correct because “but also a great president” cannot stand by itself.</p>
<p>I’m also having trouble figuring out your first question. “As inhabit” sounds odd, but perhaps it’s right grammatically.</p>
<p>okay, about the 1st one</p>
<p>the correct answer has to have as in it (twice AS many______AS etc.) - parallel structure.</p>
<p>choice A is not correct b/c it has the in. The sentence talk about just the region not in the region. that leaves out just choice B.</p>
<p>Without the repeption of “inhabit”, the comparison is unclear. It almost sounds as if you are comparing just the two countries themselves, and not the bird species and what they do. Therefore, choice “B” is correct because it helps make clear what those bird species do to North America (they inhabit it).</p>
<p>edit - oh parallel structure makes more sense 
^</p>
<p>As inhabit. Parrallel structure</p>
<p>Twice as many bird species inhabit Ecuador (as in) North America.</p>
<p>You are clearly left with A and B, because you need to maintain the parallel structure “as” in the comparison. Picking choice A (as in), you’re then comparing “inhabit Ecuador” with “in America”. Totally off, right?</p>
<p>So to maintain complete parallel structure, you need to be specific and compare two exactly the same things. To make them exactly the same, you have to say “as inhabit” so that you’re comparing “inhabit Ecuador” and “inhabit America”.</p>
<p>That’s why Choice B is the answer. Hope that helps :)</p>
<p>^thanks man. yea, I knew it was A or B, but I wanted to know if the same structure would occur everytime (including the verb in the AS…AS comparison). I remember seeing another one like this that confused me. But, now I know that I need to maintain the verb in the second part of the comparison as well. Thanks.</p>
<p>I will post more q’s on here if I need help, and others can feel free to post their q’s on here as well (for W section only though).</p>
<p>also, you don’t say “inhibit in America” so that makes choice A wrong</p>
<p>13.
The labor union (is negotiating) a contract with the hospital (that) (will satisfy) the demands of the workers and (be acceptable to) all levels of management. (no error)</p>
<p>The answer is NO ERROR. Why? I thought it should be WILL SATISFY because it is not a ‘guarantee’. The contract is still being negotiated, so shouldn’t it be ‘would satisfy’? Can anyone explain this for me? And also, these complex verb tenses and such confuse me, could someone give me a link or something so that I can get all these tenses straight in my head?</p>
<p>“The labor union (is negotiating) a contract with the hospital (that) (will satisfy) the demands of the workers and (be acceptable to) all levels of management. (no error)”</p>
<p>“Will satisfy” is used properly. You wouldn’t use “would” because the labor union didn’t finish making the contract. “Negotiating” is in the present progressive tense. The demands of the workers haven’t been met yet, but by using “will” we know that they will eventually be met.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a simple issue of definition:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will]Will”>WILL Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com]Will</a> | Define Will at Dictionary.com<a href=“see%20#3”>/url</a></p>
<p>You have to be logical here. Obviously not everything that will happen in the future is a guarantee. This requires a very simple form of reasoning.</p>
<p>OK that makes sense so I could say “I will study hard for the SAT”, but that doesn’t mean that it will be guaranteed.</p>
<p>“will satisfy” because it refers to a future action or state</p>