the difference is that those are still two events IN A SEQUENCE. this is what makes the use of "and" appropriate. generally, the -ING modifier is used for a consequence that's immediate and inherently part of the preceding action.startgmat wrote:Hope u guys don't mind for opening this thread after a long time ...
@Ron I have one doubt..
In option C
In January 1994 an oil barge ran aground off the coast of San Juan, Puerto Rico,
and its cargo of 750,000 gallons leaked into the ocean, polluting
the city's beaches.
we are using 'AND' to separate two consequential events...
is it correct here..
i.e.
* "running aground" and "leaking oil" are not the same action; they are two distinct things that occur in sequence. obviously, there's a causal relationship there -- the boat leaked oil because it ran aground -- but there are still 2 distinct events.
* on the other hand, "leaking oil" and "polluting..." are actually the same event. they are two different perspectives on that event, but they are exactly the same event: the pollution IS the oil spill.
here's another example of the same type of thing:
Mario broke a glass and yelled curse words, offending his grandmother.
--> "broke a glass AND yelled curse words" are actually two different, separate actions, even though the first is the cause of the second.
--> "yelled curse words" IS how mario offended his grandmother. since these are the same thing, "and" would be inappropriate; the -ing modifier is better.
