Quote:
thereisaFire: We have parallelism here. A list with 3 elements. Let's see if they are in parallel in option (D). Every element must work independently with the rest of the sentence.
The suspect in the burglary was advised that he
- had a right to remain silent,
- could not leave,
- was interrogated in a detention room.
The suspect in the burglary was advised that he had a right to remain silent. - Ok
The suspect in the burglary was advised that he could not leave - Ok
The suspect in the burglary was advised that he was interrogated in a detention room. - Not Ok. How can he be advised that he was interrogated?
Look at option (B) now:
The suspect in the burglary was
- advised of his right to remain silent,
- told he could not leave,
- interrogated in a detention room.
The suspect in the burglary was advised of his right to remain silent - Ok
The suspect in the burglary was told he could not leave - Ok
The suspect in the burglary was interrogated in a detention room - Ok
Hence, option (B) is correct.
Hi
VeritasKarishmaLet us construe Choice D sentence as follows and points 1, 2 & 3 in parallel
The suspect in the burglary
1. was advised that he had a right to remain silent,
2. could not leave, and
3. was interrogated in a detention room
The suspect in the burglary was advised that he had a right to remain silent.
The suspect in the burglary could not leave
The suspect in the burglary was interrogated in a detention room.
I feel all the three clauses make sense but are connected improperly and also alters the meaning of the original sentence
I eliminated choice D because the 2 independent clauses i.e "
The suspect in the burglary was advised that he had a right to remain silent" and "
The suspect in the burglary could not leave" are just connected by a comma. (Though this sentence would have made sense but grammatically it is incorrect.)
Please verify my logic.