gamezfreak wrote:
In a seven to four vote last week, Crane County officials decided to raise property taxes when it might have been expected for it to be reduced.
A. it might have been expected for it to be reduced
B. they might have been expected to have reduced them
C. they might have been expected that it should be reduced
D. its reducing might have been expected
E. there might have been an expectation for them to be reduced
In a seven to four vote last week, Crane County officials decided to raise property taxes when it might have been expected for it to be reduced.
A. it might have been expected for it to be reduced
It has no precedent referent (Both officials and taxes are pluralB. they might have been expected to have reduced them
Even though they may appear not clear, they are parallel with the previous close construction "Officials raise taxes, they are expected to reduce them C. they might have been expected that it should be reduced
I'm not so sure whether or not They is clear since we have both Officials and taxes but one thing is certain, "that it should be reduced " it has no referent D. its reducing might have been expected
Its is a possessive pronoun with no antecedent (or we could say from a logical point of view, with an antecedent with which it doesn't agree withE. there might have been an expectation for them to be reduced
In the construction of the verb "Someone" is expected to do something. Thus here might have been an expectation has no referent to the person expected and + "for them to be reduced" is not consistent with the logic of the phrase. Taxes can't reduce themself but by someone else.