-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
Which of the following best completes the passage?
Hydraulic rescue tools, colloquially known as Jaws of Life, are used by emergency response personnel to remove crash victims from damaged vehicles. Hydraulic tools have often completely replaced traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws, which could cause additional structural damage or create sparks. Emergency response workers prefer hydraulic tools, not only because they are less frightening to crash victims, but also because
A One hydraulic rescue tool can perform the functions of both a crowbar and a circular saw.
B Hydraulic tools are quieter and do not cause crash victims to panic.
C Hydraulic tools are unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation in the way that more traditional tools often did.
D Hydraulic tools are able to quickly and efficiently repair structural damage to vehicles involved in collisions.
E Emergency response workers have greater leverage when using hydraulic tools than when using traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws.
my concern: in a question like this, i feel that all we need is to present a logical advantage of "Hydraulic tools" . E presents us with one such advantage so why can't we take is as an answer?
ALSO in a construction "not only ...but also..." we need to mention two similar but independent ideas that reinforces the concept of "advantage of Hydraulic tools". i feel that C is committing the mistake of reiterating the same idea in a construction "not only ....but also...", after all something that is "less frightening to crash victims" is obviously "unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation"
Hydraulic rescue tools, colloquially known as Jaws of Life, are used by emergency response personnel to remove crash victims from damaged vehicles. Hydraulic tools have often completely replaced traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws, which could cause additional structural damage or create sparks. Emergency response workers prefer hydraulic tools, not only because they are less frightening to crash victims, but also because
A One hydraulic rescue tool can perform the functions of both a crowbar and a circular saw.
B Hydraulic tools are quieter and do not cause crash victims to panic.
C Hydraulic tools are unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation in the way that more traditional tools often did.
D Hydraulic tools are able to quickly and efficiently repair structural damage to vehicles involved in collisions.
E Emergency response workers have greater leverage when using hydraulic tools than when using traditional tools, such as crowbars and circular saws.
my concern: in a question like this, i feel that all we need is to present a logical advantage of "Hydraulic tools" . E presents us with one such advantage so why can't we take is as an answer?
ALSO in a construction "not only ...but also..." we need to mention two similar but independent ideas that reinforces the concept of "advantage of Hydraulic tools". i feel that C is committing the mistake of reiterating the same idea in a construction "not only ....but also...", after all something that is "less frightening to crash victims" is obviously "unlikely to complicate an already dangerous situation"
