Writing Question: Right or Wrong?

Test Preparation
1

<p>Hi there. I was doing a practice section and I got to this question and I'm still confused by it even after reading the right answer explanation because I believe my answer is still correct.</p>

<p>The original sentence was (underlined)Though the damage caused by strip-mining was often irreparable to the natural environment, it (underlined) was once used to supply half the coal produced annually in the United States. </p>

<p>A: original
B: Though irreparable damage is caused often to the natural environment by strip-mining, it
C: (aka the correct answer) though strip-mining often caused irreparable damage to the natural environment, it
D: Despite the fact of often irreparable damage to the natural environment, strip-mining
E: In spite of often irreparable damage to the natural environment, strip-mining</p>

<p>I believe the answer is E because A-C all have pronoun ambiguity, but the answer says that it is C because it clears the pronoun ambiguity but I don't see it. </p>

<p>Help please!</p>

2

<p>Pronoun reference rules are not hard and fast, but here are some guidelines. In general, we want the referent of a pronoun to be as close to the pronoun as possible. This proximity preference finds exception, though, when the referent appears in a different clause than the pronoun. Such is the case here, when we prefer the referent of a pronoun that serves as the subject of the independent clause (“it was once used…” for this question) to be the subject of its dependent clause. </p>

<p>For example, when one says, “Bob gave Limbo his shoes yesterday, but he is usually rather stingy,” it is assumed in the absence of contravening context that the subject pronoun “he” of the independent clause refers not to the nearer “Limbo” of the dependent clause but instead the subject of that clause, “Bob.”</p>

<p>Choice (A) is undesirable because the subject pronoun “it” of the independent clause refers not to the subject of the dependent clause (“damage”) but to the object of a prepositional phrase, “strip-mining.” Other problems include the unnecessary use of the passive voice (“caused by…”), which is not ungrammatical but is wordy, and the non-standard phrase “irreparable to.” </p>

<p>Choice (B) has the same pronoun reference ambiguity and passive-voice verbosity. It also has non-standard phrasing: “caused…to” (notwithstanding the colloquial practice of saying that damage was “caused to” something).</p>

<p>Choice (C), while not completing removing all doubt as to the referent of “it,” observes better pronoun-reference practices by making the subject of the dependent clause (“strip-mining”) the referent of the subject of the independent clause. It also removes the problematic “caused to” and “irreparable to” in favor of the more agreeable “damage to.” Finally, it’s in the active voice.</p>

<p>Choice (D) does not explicitly indicate that strip-mining is the cause of the damage, which is integral to the intended meaning of the sentence. Also of issue is that “fact of” is non-standard phrasing.</p>

<p>Choice (E) exhibits the same lack of necessary causal conveyance as choice (D). Inserting “causing” before “irreparable” to create a participial connection would probably create the ideal choice. Nonetheless, choice (C) is the clear favorite among our offerings.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

3

<p>The explanation for E still doesn’t really help me because I feel that by making strip-mining the subject of the sentence, it is implied that its role was that it caused damage to the environment. Do you have a better explanation?</p>

4

<p>Here is the general form of choice E’s syntax:</p>

<p>In spite of [object], [subject] [predicate]. </p>

<p>The object is the damage, and the subject is strip-mining. The phrase “In spite of” signals a contradiction between the introductory phrase and the independent clause; this link is not sufficiently strong to infer that the agent responsible for the damage is the subject of the independent clause. Analogously, one could write, </p>

<p>In spite of rain, I came to work today.</p>

<p>Is there a relationship between the phrase and the clause? Yes: The rain mitigated my chance of coming to work today, but it did not stop me. The presence of this relationship is indicated by “In spite of.” Does the syntax imply my responsibility for the rain? No. </p>

<p>The sentence as written in choice (E) simply requires too much exophoric knowledge; the meaning of the sentence requires the application of outside knowledge to infer what it intends to mean. Choice (C) means what choice (E) may or may not mean.</p>

5

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>My friend was explaining how ETS doesn’t like inversion and right after you showed the syntax, it finally clicked. </p>

<p>It’s just annoying for me; especially since I write creatively in my free time and I know my grammar rules and having to pick one correct answer is a pain. But thank you for your explanation!</p>