<p>A recent report [suggests that] safety conscious drivers [need not] limit themselves [to driving] large, heavy vehicles, because the structural integrity of a vehicle is [more important] than its size and weight. [NE]</p>
<p>I was hovering between [NE] and [to driving], which is redundant.</p>
<p>The answer is [NE].</p>
<p>When does ETS consider a sentence redundant? Is this ever an error?</p>
<p>I don’t think your sentence falls under what the SAT would consider redundant. Sure, the sentence may be logically redundant, but the SAT only cares about redundancy in a few major ways. </p>
<p>The SAT may test redundancy through adverbs. E.g. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One major way in which the SAT tests redundancy is through “the reason is because.” This phrase is always wrong, and it has shown up on SATs multiple times.</p>
<p>I suggest that you read through silverturtle’s grammar guide :):</p>
<p>They could crash them, or repair them, or paint them. It is not sufficient for characterization of problematic technical redundancy for one of the word sets to be inferential from the other; they must doubly convey the message.</p>
<p>Additionally, the ostensible apparent meaning of a sentence should not be changed; the only way this principle could be respected if “to driving” were the error is to eliminate “driving” and regard it as implicit. But again, other words could fit. If true redundancy were to exist, eliminating the word would make no change in the possible meaning of the sentence.</p>