DanaJ wrote:Regarded by opponents as ineffective and meddlesome and by supporters as a conserver of life and energy, the fight over the speed limit continues in our legislatures and on our freeways.
A. Regarded by opponents as ineffective and meddlesome and by supporters as a conserver of life and energy, the fight over the speed limit continues in our legislatures and on our freeways.
B. Regarded by opponents as ineffective and meddlesome and by supporters as a conserver of life and energy, the speed limit continues to be fought over in our legislatures and on our freeways.
C. Regarded by opponents as ineffective meddling and by supporters as the conservation of life and energy, the speed limit continues to be fought over in our legislatures and on our freeways.
D. The fight over the speed limit, regarded by opponents as ineffective and meddlesome and by supporters as a conserver of life and energy, continues in our legislatures and on our freeways.
E. The fight over the speed limit, a measure regarded by opponents as ineffective and meddlesome and by supporters as a conserver of life and energy, continues in our legislatures and on our freeways.
OA after some replies!
Clearly (E). The rest are complete and utter trainwrecks.
In (A), the clause "[r]egarded by opponents as ineffective and meddlesome and by supporters as a conserver of life and energy" is illogically modifying the fight over speed limits, rather than the speed limits themselves.
In (B), the sentence illogically states that speed limits themselves are being fought over, rather than the necessity of them.
In (C), "and by supporters as the conservation of life and energy" makes zero sense - speed limits are the conservation of life and energy?!? No, they are conservers of life and energy.
In (D), the placement of the modifying clause creates ambiguity - is it modifying speed limits (as it should) or is it erroneously modifying the fight over them.
(E) is the only choice that's both grammatically and logically correct.
800 or bust!