Sentence Correction

Can someone explain how to tackle this one

That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued that it is their fault: researcher Sam Daniels, one of the leading experts on the virus, reported a quarter-century ago that the virus was effectively contained and that no action beyond education was necessary.

1)That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued that it is their fault

2)That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued to be at fault

3)It cannot plausibly be argued that it is the fault of individuals who were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence

4)It cannot plausibly be argued that individuals are at fault for not receiving vaccination against the virus before its resurgence

5)The fact that individuals are at fault for not receiving vaccination against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued

show your appraoch
i am b/n C and D

That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued that it is their fault: researcher Sam Daniels, one of the leading experts on the virus, reported a quarter-century ago that the virus was effectively contained and that no action beyond education was necessary.

A. That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued that it is their fault

Ambiguous their??? the individuals who were not vaccinated or the doctors who were supposed to vaccinate these individuals???

When i ask the Q "what cannot plausibly be argued" - i get a very awkward answer.....wordy sentence

B. That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued to be at fault

When i ask the Q "what cannot plausibly be argued" - i get a very awkward answer.....wordy sentence

C. It cannot plausibly be argued that it is the fault of individuals who were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence

Confounding usage of "it"

D. It cannot plausibly be argued that individuals are at fault for not receiving vaccination against the virus before its resurgence - Clearly communicates the meaning without ambiguity

E. The fact that individuals are at fault for not receiving vaccination against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued -

"The fact that" need not be always wrong.....however, here the sentence can do without it. Somewhere in OG-12, i think Q 57 says that "the fact that" is wordy

Besides i prefer a direct approach (it cannot plausibly be argued) rather than (the fact that.....cannot plausibly be argued)

IMHO D

Hope this helps

thephoenix wrote:Can someone explain how to tackle this one

That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued that it is their fault: researcher Sam Daniels, one of the leading experts on the virus, reported a quarter-century ago that the virus was effectively contained and that no action beyond education was necessary.

1)That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued that it is their fault - who does the IT refer to in the non underlined sentence ? u ? me ? the doctors ? the people ? blah! ELIMINATE

2)That many individuals were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued to be at fault - awkwardly framed.ELIMINATE


3)It cannot plausibly be argued that it is the fault of individuals who were not vaccinated against the virus before its resurgence - what is the IT highlighted above refer to ? ELIMINATE

4)It cannot plausibly be argued that individuals are at fault for not receiving vaccination against the virus before its resurgence - the ambiguous it in option C is getting cleared here. specific. CORRECT

5)The fact that individuals are at fault for not receiving vaccination against the virus before its resurgence cannot plausibly be argued - isnt this going against the intended meaning of the sentence ? ELIMINATE

show your appraoch
i am b/n C and D

thanks to bth of u its D