1000 SC #500

[IAmSam]

500. Many psychologists and sociologists now contend that the deliberate and even brutal aggression integral to some forms of competitive athletics increase the likelihood of imitative violence that erupts among crowds of spectators dominated by young adult males.
(A) increase the likelihood of imitative violence that erupts
(B) increase the likelihood that there will be an eruption of imitative violence
(C) increase the likelihood of imitative violence erupting
(D) increases the likelihood for imitative violence to erupt
(E) increases the likelihood that imitative violence will erupt

Can you please explain why the answer is E instead of D?

[Guest]

I think it is an idiom "likelihood for" vs "likelihood that"

[Nov1907]

Aggression is only one item being discussed, so it "increases the likelihood". So all choices except D and E are eliminated. Think of likelihood as probably. "Something will probably happen" in the future. So there is a likelihood that something will happen or the likelihod of somethign occurring. Choice (E) gets the ense and the idiomatic usage correct.

[RonPurewal]

Yeah, idiomatic usage is pretty much the only thing deciding between those two choices (presumably you've eliminated the other three without even looking past the first word of each). 'Likelihood for' an event is just, well, wrong.

[ac]

I may be completely wrong here but when i first tried this question i concluded D as my answer.

Doesn't E changes the meaning of the sentence.
I mean to say, in the the original sentence "violence" has a modifier attached to it ( violence that erupts....males)


I think D is more closer if we see the meaning of the sentence. D may be wrong idiomatically but it still sounds closer to the original sentence in meaning than E. This what i thought when i initailly took a glance at the question and like i said i may be completely wrong.

I thought of sharing this as i want to know whether or not my perspective of looking at this question is right.

Can anyone please comment on this.

[RonPurewal]

Choice E doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. I'm not sure exactly how you're claiming that it does, but it seems to me you're saying that (1) the future tense or (2) the modifier creates a different meaning.

* You are absolutely right that tense changes have tremendous power to change the meaning of a sentence. However, in sentences involving probabilities or hypotheticals - such as this one - the future tense is essentially equivalent to a gerund/noun/participle, because we know that the event hasn't yet occurred. For instance: 'the probability that Jake will pass all three tests' is, for all practical purposes, the same as 'Jake's probability of passing all three tests', even though the former uses the future tense and the latter doesn't.

In any case, the idiomatic usage in D is just plain wrong, and, here, that's decisive.

[ac]

Thanks for replying to my query.


Exactly like you said, the modifier in the original sentence and the future tense in E creates a different meaning.

In original author is describing a kind of violence. But in E author is simply and plainly stating that violence will erupt in young crowd.

But i understand here (your point) that being idiomatically wrong is a good enough reason to discard D.

[RB]

This is not a good question.
"that" in (E) can't function well either as a subordinating conjunction- (Sentence ending with likelihood doesnt sound good) or as a relative pronoun (the initative violence ....... is not a likelihood).

[tim]

please understand that using practice questions from dubious sources can actually hurt your performance, and be careful which problem sources you use..