Sentence Correction

VivianKerr wrote:The subject is compound: "companies, investors, and governments" and therefore plural.

"They" is referring to the ENTIRE subject, just as "must relearn" is the verb that applies to the entire subject.

Ask yourself: who is logically "defending against"? The answer is all 3 - the companies, the investors, AND governments.

The plural pronoun to replace "companies, investors, and governments" is "they."

EASIER EXAMPLE:

Lisa, Jim, and Suzanne must stop cheating off each other if they are to improve their grades.

"they" refers back to the compound "Lisa, Jim, and Suzanne."

VivianKerr wrote:Oh, gotcha!

"guiding principles" is the object of the sentence. And the word "if" here indicates we are referring back to the original subject.

Think of it like:
"A must relearn B if A is to do C."

If we switched the clauses, the sentence would still make sense:
"If A is to do C, A must relearn B."

Also, in context, it is illogical for "principles to "defend" something. Things don't "defend." People and institutions "defend."

There is only pronoun ambiguity is a pronoun could LOGICALLY refer to more than one thing.

VivianKerr wrote:E is passive voice.

"are to be defended."

The "crises" are BEING defended, so they are the object of the sentence. We need who or what is DOING the defending to come first.

lunarpower wrote:

sameerballani wrote:

VivianKerr wrote:E is passive voice.

"are to be defended."

The "crises" are BEING defended, so they are the object of the sentence. We need who or what is DOING the defending to come first.

Hi,
Can we use were to be defended in this case. I understand that its generally used for the hypothetical situation. But i am confused how to identify what is to be used when. If you could please explain.

Thanks

i can't tell for sure, but it seems that you're trying to approach this issue from the standpoint of grammar rather than meaning. if that is what you're doing, then it will be impossible for you to understand active vs. passive (and it will also be impossible for you to understand verb tenses).
ACTIVE vs. PASSIVE is a MEANING ISSUE.
(VERB TENSES are also a MEANING ISSUE.)
These are *NOT* grammar issues!

--

make sure that you understand the significance of the passive voice vs. the active voice.

the active voice means that the subject is the doer or agent of the action.
e.g.
i moved to chicago --> i made the decision to move to chicago myself, for my own reasons.


the passive voice means that the subject is the target or recipient of the action -- i.e., that the action is done to the subject.
e.g.
i was moved to chicago --> someone else, e.g., my employer, made me move to chicago; it wasn't my decision.

--

using the above considerations, you'll realize that (e) means that people are actually trying to defend the crises themselves. that's not grammatically incorrect, but its meaning is ridiculous.

lunarpower wrote:if you are approaching these sentences without FIRST determining the meaning of the sentence, then you are using exactly the whole kind of reasoning for which the test is intentionally designed NOT to work.