TheUltimateWinner wrote:
Quote:
A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice will find it difficult to prove damage if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify about proper medical procedures.
(A) if there is a lack of some other doctor to testify
(C) without another doctor’s testimony
It seems that choices A and C are same regarding meaning issue, aren't they? Could you share your thought on the basis of 'some other' and 'another' issue?
Generally, an infinitive (
to + VERB) expresses an INTENDED action -- an action that is not actually happening but is only intended.
As a result, option A does not convey that testimony from some other doctor is needed.
The usage of
to testify in A conveys only that testimony from some other doctor is INTENDED.
This meaning seems strange.
Common sense tells us the following:
For damage to be proven, some other doctor must do more than just INTEND to testify -- the doctor must ACTUALLY testify.
The meaning conveyed by the OA is far more logical.
OA:
A patient...will find it difficult to prove damage without another doctor's testimony.Here, the phrase in blue implies that testimony from another doctor is NEEDED -- that without the testimony, a patient will find it difficult to prove damage.
Since C conveys a more logical meaning than A, eliminate A and choose C.
Another error in A:
Generally,
a lack of must refer to a noun that can be modified by
much or
many.
Since it is possible to have
MUCH motivation, it is possible to suffer from
A LACK OF motivation.
Since it is possible to have
MUCH money, it is possible suffer from
A LACK OF money.
Since it is possible to have
MANY friends, it is possible to suffer from
A LACK OF friends.
A:
a lack of some other doctorIt is not possible to have
MUCH some other doctor or
MANY some other doctor.
Thus, the phrase above is nonsensical.
The following would be acceptable:
a lack of OTHER DOCTORSThe referent in green is viable because it is possible to have
MANY other doctors.