Because there are provisions.....

[523128572]

ron, look at the following 2 questions:
1. Mixed with an equal part of water, ethylene glycol, a compound commonly used as an automotive antifreeze, is effective at temperatures as low as -30 degrees Fahrenheit.
A. temperatures as low
B. temperatures so low
C. as low temperatures
D. as few
E. as little
OA A
2. The Environmental Protection Agency frequently puts mandatory controls on toxic substances that present as little risk as one in a million chances to cause cancer.
(A) as little risk as one in a million chances to cause
(B) as little risk as one chance in a million of causing
(C) as little risk as one chance in a million that it will cause
(D) a risk as little as one chance in a million for causing
(E) a risk as little as one chance in a million for it to cause
OA B
in the first one, the answer gives the explanation that in C, there is no object after "at".However, in the second one, the answer is B and why B this time is correct?why don't we say there is no object after "present"? this question has confused me for a long time.hope for your reply!!!

hey, here, "at" is a preposition and "present" is a verb. The two can not be compared.

I have a small follow up question for Ron here:
Ron, would the following two mean exactly the same thing:
<something> presents as little risk as one in a million chances to cause cancer.
<something> presents a risk as little as one in a million chances to cause cancer.
thanks in advance

hey, i got it! ron has answered this question here:
prep-sc-mixed-with-an-equal-part-of-water-ethylene-glycol-t9998.html

[divineacclivity]

Ok, thank you.

[RonPurewal]

thanks for finding that. how'd you find that?

[thanghnvn]

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

A is wrong because the meaning is changed
A means
because there are provisions, they stimulate
the focus of reason is "are"
the intended meaning is
because the code provides, it stimulate
the focus of reason is "provides"

is my thinking correct?

[jlucero]

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

A is wrong because the meaning is changed
A means
because there are provisions, they stimulate
the focus of reason is "are"
the intended meaning is
because the code provides, it stimulate
the focus of reason is "provides"

is my thinking correct?

Yes

[yuhui_e]

Hi Guys,

This sentence completely eludes me.

If i understand correctly, the original sentence tell us that the provisions within the code and not the code itself is causing the problem. That said, none of the choices make sense. The OA in fact tells that its not the provisions but the code itself is only about the issue.

Could the experts (Ron Or Stacey) please help me as i am throughly confused. Am i reading the sentence wrong?

Really appreciate your help.

remember that the approach is hierarchical:
1) CORRECTNESS
2) CLARITY

these are not on equal footing - correctness supersedes clarity.

in other words:
if 4 of the choices in a SC problem are WRONG, then it doesn't matter whether the 1
correct choice changes the meaning.

in this problem, 4 of the choices are WRONG.
(a) is redundant (provisions ... provide), and (c) (d) (e) contain grammatical/usage errors.

since (b) is the only choice that is grammatically sound, it really makes no difference whether its meaning is exactly the same as that of the original.

hi, Ron.
can I eliminate an answer just because it change the meaning of the question? The meaning can be a split to eliminate any answer?

[tim]

Every single word you change, in any sentence ever, changes the meaning. Please don't fall into the trap of assuming you have to adhere to the meaning of the "original". Not only is grammar far more important than meaning, but if the original sentence is wrong then you HAVE to change the meaning, even if only slightly. If this were not true, then literally every SC question ever would have A as the correct answer.

[yuhui_e]

Every single word you change, in any sentence ever, changes the meaning. Please don't fall into the trap of assuming you have to adhere to the meaning of the "original". Not only is grammar far more important than meaning, but if the original sentence is wrong then you HAVE to change the meaning, even if only slightly. If this were not true, then literally every SC question ever would have A as the correct answer.

thank you for your answer!!!!!!

[jlucero]

Glad we can help.

[baixuesong221]

can anyone please explain what the meaning of "the basis for claims to " for me ?

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

can anyone please explain what the meaning of "the basis for claims to " for me ?

Thank you

First, what's your understanding of it?

1/
What does "claims to xxxx" mean? (If you don't know, you can figure it out. Note that xxxx are physical locations.)

2/
What does "the basis for something" mean?

Try answering these questions first.
It would be unwise for us to simply tell you what the words mean; instead, you should try to reason out the meaning, as much as you can.

[josefdong]

two problems with that choice:

1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

examples:
Joe broke the window, angering his father. --> this sentence makes sense, because it correctly implies that joe "angered his father".
the window was broken by Joe, angering his father. --> this sentence doesn't make sense, because it implies that the window (i.e., not joe himself) angered joe's father.

my brother tricked me, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in my brother for tricking me (and not necessarily disappointed in me for being tricked).
i was tricked by my brother, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in me because i fell for my brother's trick (and not that he's disappointed in my brother for tricking me).

2) the modifier "under provisions of the new maritime code" is placed in a location that is somewhat ambiguous -- it seems to suggest that the sea areas themselves are under those provisions.
(this is certainly not a fatal error, but you should notice it in contrast to the other answer choices, in which that modifier is moved to a more logically sound location).

[/quote]

Hi Ron,

In terms of "comma -ving", I learned some points from you and Manhattan SC guide. But, context above makes me confused. Two of points from you and SC guide are as follows:

1. ving can modify the preceding clause as the immediate and unavoidable consequence;
2. ving can modify an entire clause as long as the entire clause converted into a noun phrase could function as the subject of the verb that is now in -ing form. This is from Page 90 in Manhattan SC Guide. And there is also an example: Since we can say that "the recent decrease in crime has led to a rise in property values", we can also say "Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in ..."

According to above rules, when we talk about "ving" as immediate consequence of preceding clause, "ving" has no logical subject or has a subject: the whole noun phrase converted from the entire clause. Just as this same example,
you cannot merely say that "Crime itself has led to a rise in property". Makes No sense.

So,why do you say " the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action." In this case, "crime" makes no sense as the agent of "leading".

[josefdong]

two problems with that choice:

1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

examples:
Joe broke the window, angering his father. --> this sentence makes sense, because it correctly implies that joe "angered his father".
the window was broken by Joe, angering his father. --> this sentence doesn't make sense, because it implies that the window (i.e., not joe himself) angered joe's father.

my brother tricked me, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in my brother for tricking me (and not necessarily disappointed in me for being tricked).
i was tricked by my brother, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in me because i fell for my brother's trick (and not that he's disappointed in my brother for tricking me).

2) the modifier "under provisions of the new maritime code" is placed in a location that is somewhat ambiguous -- it seems to suggest that the sea areas themselves are under those provisions.
(this is certainly not a fatal error, but you should notice it in contrast to the other answer choices, in which that modifier is moved to a more logically sound location).

Hi Ron,

In terms of "comma -ing", I learned some points from you and Manhattan SC guide. But, context above makes me confused. Two of points from you and SC guide are as follows:

1. -ing can modify the preceding clause as the immediate and unavoidable consequence;
2. -ing can modify an entire clause as long as the entire clause converted into a noun phrase could function as the subject of the verb that is now in -ing form. This is from Page 90 in Manhattan SC Guide. And there is also an example: Since we can say that "the recent decrease in crime has led to a rise in property values", we can also say "Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in ..."

According to above rules, when we talk about "-ing" as immediate consequence of preceding clause, "-ing" has no logical subject or has a subject: the whole noun phrase converted from the entire clause. Just as this same example,
you cannot merely say that "Crime itself has led to a rise in property". Makes No sense.

So,why do you say " the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action." In this case, "crime" makes no sense as the agent of "leading".[/quote]

(P.S. I do know "-ing" can/should apply to subject of the preceding clause when it describes the simultaneous but lower priority action, or offers additional information. But I think it is not the same case when immediate/unaviodable consequences happen.)

[RonPurewal]

According to above rules, when we talk about "-ing" as immediate consequence of preceding clause, "-ing" has no logical subject or has a subject: the whole noun phrase converted from the entire clause. Just as this same example,
you cannot merely say that "Crime itself has led to a rise in property". Makes No sense.

So,why do you say " the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action." In this case, "crime" makes no sense as the agent of "leading".

You are correct; that example doesn't really work. If it's in our guide, I'll submit it for editing/removal in the next edition.
Thanks.

[manhhiep2509]

Hello.

in previous post, Ron said that in choice A using both "provisions" and "provide" are redundant.
In oxford dictionary,
"provision" means an agreement or an arrangement.
"to provide that" means to state that something is true or that something must happen.

Thus, I do not find meanings of the two overlap.

Please explain what makes using both "provisions" and "provide" are redundant?

Thank you.