IMO D ?

Reasoning will follow!

Nightwish wrote:13. A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future.
(A) that they will, or could,
(B) that they would, or could,
(C) they will be or could
(D) think that they will be or could
(E) think the power stations would or could

go with A

B and E -would or could looks awkward

Also repetition of "be" in C and D is wordy

In A "or could" is correctly made non essential

IMO D as it looks better than other options.

However to me all looks wrong, what is the source?

In A *that* has no antecedent, D clears the meaning by inserting one more verb think, however, still in D I can't figure out how will be and could, be are parallel

Also, don't you think there should be comman before 'but', i think but is acting as a coordinating conjuction here.

A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present, but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future.

OA is D

Nightwish wrote:OA is D

As far as I know,

1. will or could cant go together

will expresses certanity and could expresses uncertanity

2. but is also followed by a comma when used a cordinator

Only exception is when but is used a preposition

3. "be" is just another form of being and having "will be or could be" is double bonanza for akwardness

( I hope no one thinks that "be" is required to provide parallelsim)

Friends, let me know your views


source pls

wouldnt 'they' refer to the journalists??!!

A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future.

think that they will be or could
pls explain.

I agree with you iamcste

for parallelism be should used only once just like the infinitive to

The two most important points that differentiates parallelism from awkwardness.

Honestly I simply cant make sense of this question. I feel commas are also incorrectly used.

As far as the source is concerned, none other than 1000SC. So the next step should be forget about it.

s&s wrote:wouldnt 'they' refer to the journalists??!!

A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future.

think that they will be or could
pls explain.

They - refers to nuclear power stations

who [journalists] think that they[power stations] should be made safe

hope this helps.

parallel_chase wrote:

s&s wrote:wouldnt 'they' refer to the journalists??!!

A majority of the international journalists surveyed view nuclear power stations as unsafe at present but that they will, or could, be made sufficiently safe in the future.

think that they will be or could
pls explain.

They - refers to nuclear power stations

who [journalists] think that they[power stations] should be made safe

hope this helps.

Can someone explain why option E is wrong.I am not concerned about the actual answer but only th explanation.Option E doesnt have any ambiguity about usage of They