hard question

[bupbebeo]

a resume is a history of past work experience, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it is definitely not; a chronology of past performance.

a, the same with underlined portion

b, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it definitely is not. It is not a chronology of performance in the past

c, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing a resume definitely is not: a chronology of past performance.

d, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it definitely is not. it is not a chronology of past performance.

e, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it is definitely not. it is not a chronology of past performance.


Please answer with reasons.

[abhishekdrolia]

IMO C. As C states resume directly and also uses the colon properly.

[RumpelThickSkin]

C + 1 ...

[bupbebeo]

C + 1 ...

sorry guys, your answer is wrong. Moreover, please answer with reason. if you just " IMO C" how it could help me and others.

[thephoenix]

a resume is a history of past work experience, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it is definitely not; a chronology of past performance.

a, the same with underlined portion
use of semicolon is wrong here a chronology of past performance is a noun modifier and needs a comma rather semicolon

b, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it definitely is not. It is not a chronology of past performance.

c, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing a resume definitely is not: a chronology of past performance.
violating rules of using colon

d, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it definitely is not, it is not a chronology of past performance.
comma splice error If its a comma

e, and when it is well written it is also a savvy piece of marketing, but there is one thing it is definitely not. it is not a chronology of past performance.

i don't see any difference b/n B and D except capital and small I

is the option E written correctly

i guess its B