HumptyDumpty wrote:
anish123ster wrote:
A is the correct answer.
(A) known to oppose evolution on religious grounds...Correct
(B) known as an opponent of evolution on religious grounds..means he is an opponent of evolution..Incorrect
Isn't he an opponent of evolution? Isn't it what follows from A)?
Dear
HumptyDumpty,
I don't know that this is what
anish123ster is getting at, but the phrase "
known to oppose evolution on religious grounds" contains a potential ambiguity --- is Bryan's
opposition on religious grounds? or is his opposition
known to the rest of us on religious grounds? ---- In other words, the adverbial phrase
"on religious grounds" could modify either of the verbs, and this ambiguity is potentially problematic.
daagh wrote:
What is the critical difference between - known to oppose evolution - and opponent of evolution? known to oppose may be slightly better because it shorter; But are they both difference otherwise?
They are quite similar --- the only major difference is that the phrase "
an opponent of evolution" does not explicitly include the idea of the rest of us knowing about it. It's quite possible for a public figure to be an opponent of something without the general public knowing about his opposition. If we want to include the idea of everyone else knowing about it, the phrase becomes: "
known to be an opponent of evolution" ---- that's awkward, clunky, floppy, and indirect --- the phrase "
known to oppose evolution" is much more sleek and direct. As a general rule, if there's a split between the noun form (e.g. "opposition") and the verb form ("oppose") of the same word, using the verb form will generally lead to a more concise, more powerful, and more active sentence.
Here's a video lesson in which I discuss this latter idea:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/lessons/917-ver ... e-languageDoes all this make sense?
Mike