skamal7 wrote:
As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales
they would in the past have conceded to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals
This may be a stupid question as I am asking a very basic grammar rule but I need to understand this so please help me.
Source
OG 12
As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales it would in the past have conceded to rivals.
I was able to choose the correct answer but I have a different question here.
Subordinate Clause: As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments
Main Clause: the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales
Extra clause/Dependent: it would in the past have conceded to rivals.
My question is how the main clause and extra/dependent clause are joined without any subordinate conjunction such as that etc.
Hi skamal7
Your question is really good!
The rule is: You
CAN OMIT the relative pronouns such as that, which, who,...... if they modify an
OBJECT of the sentence.
You
CANNOT OMIT the relative pronouns if they modify
SUBJECT of the sentence.
Examples:(1) I forgot a book
that I borrowed at the library last week. ==> "a book" is the object of the sentence [I borrowed
a book at the library last week], you can omit the relative pronoun "that
Right: I forgot a book I borrowed at the library last week
(2) The professor
who taught me math in high school is really smart ==> "the professor" is the
subject of the sentence ==> you cannot omit "who"
Wrong: The professor taught me math in high school is really smart.
Hope it helps.