In some species of Cricket, the number of chirps per minute

[Samy]

In some species of Cricket, the number of chirps per minute used by the male for attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and they can infact serve as an approximate thermometer

1. Same
2. for attracting females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, which can infact serve
3. in attracting females rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature, infact possibly serving
4. to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, and it can infact serve
5. to attract females rises and falls in accordance with the surrounding temperature, infact possibly serving

The ans is between D and E.
Please explain why.. :evil: [/url]

[givemeanid]

And is used to join two independent clauses, not a clause and its modifier. Also 'it' doesn't seem to refer to anything particular in D.
E is correct.

[StaceyKoprince]

"It can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer" is also an independent clause - it can stand alone as a sentence. Also, "it" refers to the number of chirps per minute, which is appropriately singular.

I like D better here. E introduces the word "possibly" which has a different meaning than "it can serve." The "it can" means it is, really, while "possibly" means it might. Not the same thing. And the original sentence uses "can" so I want to preserve the meaning.

Also the construction "in fact possibly serving" is awkward.

[Guest]

"It can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer" is also an independent clause - it can stand alone as a sentence. Also, "it" refers to the number of chirps per minute, which is appropriately singular.

I like D better here. E introduces the word "possibly" which has a different meaning than "it can serve." The "it can" means it is, really, while "possibly" means it might. Not the same thing. And the original sentence uses "can" so I want to preserve the meaning.

Also the construction "in fact possibly serving" is awkward.

hi stacey
i think E is better here. because the number of chirps per minute itself does not act as thermometer. The action of its rise and fall in accordance with the surrounding temperature serves as thermometer. please comment whether i m wrong

[rfernandez]

Guest, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that "in fact possibly serving..." introduces an adverbial modifier that modifies the entire preceding clause. As Stacey points out though, "in fact possibly serving" is awkward; It would be better if it simply said "possibly serving."

In defense of D, I would argue that it's OK for the number of chirps per minute to serve as a thermometer, not unlike how expanding mercury in a glass tube serves as a thermometer.

[H]

Just a side question, is there any difference between "according to" and "in accordance with"?
Are they interchangeable?
Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

What is the OA?

[jwinawer]

I agree with Stacey. But, Samy, please post the OA and the source.

[gmattaker]

"It can in fact serve as an approximate thermometer" is also an independent clause - it can stand alone as a sentence. Also, "it" refers to the number of chirps per minute, which is appropriately singular.

I like D better here. E introduces the word "possibly" which has a different meaning than "it can serve." The "it can" means it is, really, while "possibly" means it might. Not the same thing. And the original sentence uses "can" so I want to preserve the meaning.

Also the construction "in fact possibly serving" is awkward.

CAn someone plz. explain how we can say "it" refers to "number of chirps" and not "thermometer".
"it" is singular and noth "number of chirps" and "thermometer" are singular and using both of them makes sense, so why "number of chirps" and not "thermometer"

[gmattaker]

Can someone plz. clear my problem.

[RonPurewal]

Can someone plz. clear my problem.

can't refer to "thermometer" because "thermometer" appears later in the same clause.

analogy:
he threw the ball to steve.
here, we don't know who "he" is, but we know that "he" is definitely not steve.

make sense?

[H]

Just a side question, is there any difference between "according to" and "in accordance with"?
Are they interchangeable?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Just a side question, is there any difference between "according to" and "in accordance with"?
Are they interchangeable?
Thanks in advance.

according to can also be used to attribute a quote or saying:
according to cyril connolly, lazy people often find it difficult to stop working once they've started.
you can't do that with "in accordance with".

in accordance with can be used to show that some phenomenon is consistent with some principle: in accordance with the principles of classical liberalism, the debate moderators allowed the expression of all points of view, from the mundane to the absurd.
you can't do that with "according to".

there may be others, but that's what i get off the top of my head.

[zijing4546]

Hi guys, why can't "it" refer to "temperature"?

[JonathanSchneider]

"It" is used as a subject pronoun, and so it most logically connects to the subject of the previous clause. This is "clear enough." In general, don't go nuts with your pronoun-clarity rules; if something really seems perfectly clear to you, let it be. (Huge caveat here: you need to develop a sense of when things are really clear, and reviewing problems that you get incorrect will help you to build that up over time.)