vietmoi999 wrote:think of something as true
is wrong idiom. that is why D is wrong? is that right.
please, tell me all the idioms with the verb "thinks"
Dear Vietmoi,
That's an excellent question, and I'm happy to respond.
First of all, here's a free idiom ebook,
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom-ebook/
The idioms with the verb "to think". The primary idiom, the one that appears most frequently on the GMAT, is
think that ...
In this idiom, the word "that" opens a subordinate clause, so it has to be followed by a full
[noun]+[verb] structure.
You are correct, the idiom "
to think of X as Y" is also correct, but less common on the GMAT. This has more the connotation of something less seriously held, more of a personal opinion. This is something very subtle. Consider these two statements:
(a) I think that
Casablanca is the greatest movie of all time.
(b) I think of
Casablanca as the greatest movie of all time.
Both are grammatically and idiomatically correct. They mean almost exactly the same thing. There is a very subtle difference in connotation. For (a), it sounds as if I am ready to present a formal argument supporting my point --- it's something I believe, and I think others should believe it as well. For (b), it sounds more like a purely personal opinion --- yes, I believe this, but I really have no sound reason other than my tastes, and I couldn't really convince anyone else. Statement (a) is a little more definite, and statement (b) is a little more tentative, but again, it's a very subtle difference.
Within this context,
... make statements about an opponent that they may not think are true
is more definitive. The implication is that a politician should say only facts, that is, only things that he thinks are true. Trustworthy, definitive, and clear facts.
By contrast,
... make statements about an opponent that they may not think of as true
is more wishy-washy. It sounds as though we want a politician to say things that he thinks of as true --- i.e., his unsupported opinions, his fantasies, his biases, etc. That's not the sense of the sentence. We don't want the politicians biases --- we want information that we can trust as factual.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
