|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 110
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 4
|
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Email
Attachments
Email.jpg [ 109.03 KiB | Viewed 901 times ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 375
Location: India
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 1
|
D
People still believe it so we need present tense D and E.
In E had been usage is not correct. Lets see what is OA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 110
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 4
|
OA is D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 166
Location: Mumbai
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
A - "that a recepient had added" usage is wrong, "for enabling" is also wrong
B - "who had still been harboring" usage is wrong, "for enabling" is also wrong
C - it should be "who were still" , "would add" is not correct
D - this is correct, based on POE
E - "had been" is not required, otherwise this would have been better than D
What is the OA? And the rationale for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 55
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 2
|
why is "who" not necessary here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 139
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
same question why "who" is not necessary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 375
Location: India
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 1
|
Guys it's not a matter of who, it is matter of tense. All who have past tense while we need present tense here.
Check my reasoning if you have doubt I will come back again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, Marcab, Narenn, GetThisDone
|
close
