C.Ě law passed in 1933 that made it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen holding: Incorrect. 2.Ěll the errors of Choice A are repeated. The sentence now seems to suggest that the immigrants arrived in the US with the “law”. With a law passed in 1933 that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold: Incorrect. On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold: Incorrect for the reasons stated above. As such, we don’t have modification issue here. The verb-ing modifier is also modifying “law”, a slightly far away noun. Now “passed in 1933” is a verb-ed modifier that is modifying “law”. The verb-ing modifier here appears after “law passed in 1933”. 2.Ěccordingly, “… a US citizen hold gold” will change into “… a US citizen to hold gold”. We need to say “a crime for a US citizen”. “a crime that…” is not an idiomatic expression. Because of this law, immigrants found that they had to surrender all the gold they had brought with them on the arrival in the US. According to this law, it was a crime punishable by imprisonment for a US citizen to possess gold in the form of bullion or coins. So let’s first understand what the sentence means. The sentence does not convey the meaning so clearly because of the construction. Shraddha, Can you explain the steps to arrive at the correct answer for this question? sc-law-44878.html What does the modifier in the first sentence, making it possible modify? Hi Pavan, On account of a law passed in 1933, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them. For anyone in the future who similarly curdles his or her brain into mush and over-complicates everything: please take a break! I got too carried away with the whole "action" vs. The simplest way to figure this out is to simply say: are the shields protecting the warriors? yes! therefore - correct. Which perspective is correct? In retrospect, I was thinking too much writing this. However, if I were to get a bit technical, I would argue that the shields themselves are not DOING the action of protecting, but rather that the warriors are USING the shields to protect themselves and therefore winning the battles. Applying your logic, would this sentence be correct? "For the Ashanti warriors of Africa, shields with wooden frames were essential items, helping win battles." The shields are protecting the warriors and therefore helping them win battles, therefore this sentence would be correct. Similarly, the shields themselves are not doing the action of protecting, they are, as the sentence reads, just "items of military equipment." Am I stretching this a bit too much here? I can see how the shields' function is to protect so I kinda see your point also. for OG12, SC30, AC-C (correct answer) reads: "For members of the 17th century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears." Using Joe's example above, wouldn't this be incorrect? In the example, Joe is not doing the action of increasing his salary. I just want to make sure I got this right.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |