adi_800 wrote:Now, with option B, the intent of showing WHY the relationship is unclear is lost as we have two independent clauses separated by a semicolon... As a reader I do not think we come to know that the second independent clause is a reason for the first clause...
[/quote]
the sentence doesn't actually explain why the relationship is unclear; it states something that
emphasizes, but does not explain, the fact that the relationship is unclear (i.e., studies are giving apparently contradictory results).
that's about the only way i can explain, but i can give an analogy:
we don't yet know which candidate is going to win the election; one major poll predicted that candidate x would win, while another predicted that candidate y would win.
--> in this sentence, you could not replace the semicolon with comma + "because", because the two clauses don't describe a cause-and-effect relationship. the contradictory poll results just underscore the fact that we don't know which candidate will win, but they do nothing to explain
why that uncertainty exists.
the same is happening in the problem at hand.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron