imo c...clear & concise

Isn't choice E just as clear and concise or is there a meaning change here?

a comma before 'and' makes C go for a toss!

so the answer is A

what does -....- means in the above question? is it a kind of punctuation like comma or colon? can someone explain this pls?

thanks

paku- C I understand, but what is wrong w/ E?

kiranlegend- I think the dash in the underlined piece serves as a pause...either comma/semicolon. I really don't understand why it is necessary.

If you pick E, the sentence sounds like a run-on...it doesn't end well and sounds awkward. Try reading it out loud and you'll find yourself wanting to end the sentence, but it doesn't....it ends with "..."

I don't know how else to better explain it.

I think this a good question

Archeologit ... excavated a 5000 year old wooden skull that is the earliest .... and that thus represents ....


Archeologit ... excavated a 5000 year old wooden skull ---> main clause

that - > introduces a sub ordinate clause

and -> introduces another clause

that -> should refer back to wooden skull of the mail clause

If u notice the second that is not contained inside the first that

Option A is correct because there is a proper reference to wooden skull

Option C does not properly refer to the wooden skull of the main clause . It would probably refer to the excavated a 5000 year old wooden skull of the mail clause . This is not desired.
The wooden skull represents a major advance and not the excavation of the wooden skull.


Option E cannot be the aanswer because there is not proper reference to the wooden skull of the main clause.
If u chose option E u would be saying that "a boat counstructed out of wooden planks" as the major advancement. That is not the intention

I hope ppl can understand this .

Please correct me if i am wrong

Vignesh.4384 wrote:I think this a good question

Archeologit ... excavated a 5000 year old wooden skull that is the earliest .... and that thus represents ....


Archeologit ... excavated a 5000 year old wooden skull ---> main clause

that - > introduces a sub ordinate clause

and -> introduces another clause

that -> should refer back to wooden skull of the mail clause

If u notice the second that is not contained inside the first that

Option A is correct because there is a proper reference to wooden skull

Option C does not properly refer to the wooden skull of the main clause . It would probably refer to the excavated a 5000 year old wooden skull of the mail clause . This is not desired.
The wooden skull represents a major advance and not the excavation of the wooden skull.


Option E cannot be the aanswer because there is not proper reference to the wooden skull of the main clause.
If u chose option E u would be saying that "a boat counstructed out of wooden planks" as the major advancement. That is not the intention

I hope ppl can understand this .

Please correct me if i am wrong

In short, I guess, we can say A has parallel structure.. right?:)

one more reason, possibly, E might be wrong could be due to lack of finish of that dash

correct me if am wrong?

Whatever you need to have the other "-" to get the sentence right?
Only one "-" is not possible I think so --> A or B