<ol>
<li> Few poets combine passion with precise expression as well as [Edna St. Vincent Millay]</li>
</ol>
<p>Few poets combine passion with precise expression as well as [Edna St. Vincent Millay would do]</p>
<h2>The first is correct. Now, I naturally picked the first one, but then I switched to the second because I thought there was an illogical comparison; you can't compare poets's actions with another poet, you must compare a poet's actions with another person's actions, hence making "would do" (although does was what i was looking for) preferable. But apparently I was wrong lol. Can someone explain why the first is correct? I guess you don't take into account the verb? You only compare subject to subject?</h2>
<p>2.
*How exactly do logical comparisons work? *
Plants grown for their flowers should be treated with a low nitrogen fertilzer because excessive nitrogen promotes the [growth of leaves] at the expense of [flowers]</p>
<h2>The above is correct, but I felt like it was wrong because it was comparing growth with flowers. I thought "promotes the leaves...flowers" or "promotes the growth of leaves... growth of flowers" would be correct as opposed to the one up top. </h2>
<p>3.
Those who defend sequoia trees from loggers [justified] doing so on the grounds that such trees are irreplaceable</p>
<p>Why is justified wrong? I guess present tense works too, but I don't understand why past is wrong. the first clause has a general sense [those who defend] whereas the "justified" is a specific event which may easily occur in the past. </p>
<hr>
<p>4.
[Opposite to] most people I know, Annie, a good photographer (herself), actually enjoys bla bla bla</p>
<p>Opposite to.. <<< is WRONG? This is the first idiom that sounds so right lol. I take it that "opposite from" is the only acceptable form? is Opposite to correct in any context? </p>
<h2>also, is there a way that can help me know if herself, myself, etc are correct? They always sound fishy to me...</h2>
<ol>
<li> Not very particular [in] nestong sides, house wrens.... </li>
</ol>
<p>so "in" is apparently wrong. What's correct? I thought "in" could be approrpiate.. "I'm very particular in what I eat" no? </p>
There is no illogical comparison. The “does” is implied: “Few poets combine passion with precise expression as well as Edna St. Vincent Millay [does].” This is called an elliptical clause. A common example of an elliptical clause is “John is taller than Edward [is],” where “is” is implied and can be left out.</p>
<p>“Few poets combine . . . as well as Edna St. Vincent Millay would do” is incorrect because we normally talk about literature (poetry in this case) in the simple present tense. In other words, the tense of verb in the second clause should match the tense of the original verb “combine” in the first clause.
Why do you think the sentence is “comparing growth with flowers”? There is no comparison. “at the expense of” does not denote a comparison. Here are examples of the phrase “at the expense of”:
Early in the morning, I played my radio on the street at the expense of neighbors sleeping.</p>
<p>I took the job that I liked the most at the expense of a higher salary.
In the first sentence, you are saying that you played the radio on the street with the result of negatively affecting neighbors who were sleeping. In the second sentence, you are saying you took the job that you liked despite losing a higher salary. These are “expenses,” or costs. Costs are negative effects. The noun (or noun phrase) that follows “at the expense of” represents the thing that is SUFFERING from the cost, or the negative effect of your action. If you play the radio really loud early in the morning, the people who are suffering are neighbors; you are playing the radio at the expense of your neighbors.
When you use the simple past tense, you are talking about specific events in the past. There’s no specific event in the past where opponents of logging (tree-cutters) came out and said that their justification was that sequoia trees are irreplaceable. The sentence is only trying to convey a general stance, not a specific event, so you use the simple present tense. (The sentence is not incorrect just because there needs to be parallel tense; it’s more subtle than that unfortunately.)
You don’t use “opposite to” when you’re talking about people. Use something like “unlike”: “Unlike most people I know, Annie. . . .” Or “different from.” It should sound blatantly wrong to you to say “Annie is opposite to most people I know,” whereas it sounds natural and correct to say “Annie is different from most people I know” or “Annie is unlike most people I know.”</p>
<p>You may use “opposite to” when you’re talking about objects and location. For example, you could say “The dinner table is opposite to the fish tank,” which means the dinner table is on one side of the room and the fish tank is on the other. You can’t force the phrase to become more abstract and use it to refer to people who have different personalities. The only related “idiom” that could be used in a discussion about people would be the noun “opposite”: “Annie and Johnny are opposites.” That would be an acceptable idiom in this context, but that’s a different form.</p>
<p>“himself,” “herself,” “themselves,” etc., are used for emphasis. For example:
I don’t know why she is so upset about being lied to; she herself lies all the time.
It’s hard to explain, but hopefully you are familiar with this usage.
“I’m very particular in what I eat” is wrong. You would say “I’m very particular about what I eat.” And it should be “particular about,” not “particular of.” “particular” means “picky.” You are picky about something.</p>
<p>Here’s the relevant definition from Dictionary.com (entry #7):
“exceptionally selective, attentive, or exacting; fastidious; fussy: to be particular about one’s food.”</p>