The
main objection to having
Vladimir Putin's man in the job
was that Russia often tries to
use Interpol to arrest blameless
critics abroad.
Is use of "To having" correct?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
The Economist "Sentence" doubt
This topic has expert replies
-
pankajpal.iitkgp
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:46 am
-
himalaya savalia
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:25 am
It seems correct.
Here we are expressing our objection 'to' something.
So, objection to is correct.
And when you ask 'what' do we object to, you get answer 'having Vladimir Putin's man in the job' , which is a clause.
So, you have to see sentence like ---> object to 'clause'
Hence, the sentence seems correct.
Here we are expressing our objection 'to' something.
So, objection to is correct.
And when you ask 'what' do we object to, you get answer 'having Vladimir Putin's man in the job' , which is a clause.
So, you have to see sentence like ---> object to 'clause'
Hence, the sentence seems correct.
-
pankajpal.iitkgp
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:46 am
Thanks a lot. I couldn't comprehend such simple sentence which makes me look stupid after you simplify it effortlessly.
himalaya savalia wrote:It seems correct.
Here we are expressing our objection 'to' something.
So, objection to is correct.
And when you ask 'what' do we object to, you get answer 'having Vladimir Putin's man in the job' , which is a clause.
So, you have to see sentence like ---> object to 'clause'
Hence, the sentence seems correct.
