Mechmeera wrote:Replacing the pronoun
it in [the second half of] the given sentence with plural pronoun
them, the sentence [correction question becomes different,] as follows
Can someone explain which of the options are correct or wrong based on following aspects?
- 1. from home/their home to CW/reach CW
2. despite having traveled vs even after traveling
3. - therefore being free vs
where they would now be free vs
that offered freedom to roam vs
where they could freely roam vs
that would offer them freedom
While not all of my comments agree with the OA, here is what I see in the question should you change the singular
it to the plural
them.
1. The connotations of the word
home are different from those of the expression
their home. In this case,
their home is better because that expression is similar to
their original home or
their environment.
1. When one says that one traveled to reach, one seems to be saying that one traveled in order to reach. I guess it makes more sense to say simply that the deer traveled
to the Canadian wilderness, as the point of the sentence is not that they traveled in order to reach the wilderness, rather to make it clear that they moved a long distance from where they were originally to the wilderness.
2.
Despite having traveled makes more sense here. The point is that they traveled, and despite their having done that, they did not do well. Saying that they even traveled is not as effective as
even is more of a comparative term, or a term meant to indicate degree.
I was so interested in wearing just the right outfit that I even hired a consultant.
In this case,
even is used to indicate that hiring a consultant is not common and is a part of a relatively serious project.
So
even indicates a relative degree of something. The point of this sentence is not that the deer even traveled far. The point is that despite having traveled, they were having trouble acclimating.
3.
Canadian wilderness that would offer them the freedom to roam seems to convey that there are multiple Canadian wildernesses and that possibly there another Canadian wilderness that would not offer them the freedom to roam. Also it is not the case that the Canadian wilderness
would offer freedom to roam, but rather that it offers freedom to roam.
Canadian wilderness that offered freedom to roam has similar issues, and also the past tense, offered, seems to indicate that the Canadian wilderness no longer offers freedom to roam.
where they would now be free indicates that something is happening now, whereas they became free to roam in the past.
Canadian wilderness where they could freely roam would be better with a comma, making it
Canadian wilderness, where they could freely roam. Without the comma, it conveys that there are multiple Canadian wildernesses, one of them in particular being the one where the deer could freely roam.
therefore being free seems to work pretty well.
When the
it is changed to
them, I find that the OA becomes A.