Hemanthdasu13 wrote:
daagh wrote:
C) to try to block the so-called Robin Hood tax because it will ensnare countries outside the Euro Zone, which do not adopt the law -----1. ‘Because it will ensnare’ seems too strongly worded. 2. Which certainly refers to the countries; Note that the verb is plural and it does not refer to the Zone, which is singular. So C is passable.
D to try to block the so-called Robin Hood tax on the grounds that it could ensnare countries outside the Euro Zone that do not adopt the law--- Could ensnare is fine, definitely acceptable at the start of the campaign;2. However, the ‘that’ in Euro Zone is a restrictive pronoun, therefore must refer to the Euro Zone ; There is no elbow-room for the restrictive pronouns to modify any noun other than what is in the front. So all choices that say “ Euro-zone that” are inherently flawed. This leaves only C, I suppose
That is the reason C is better than D.
Dear
VeritasKarishmaI guess we need your presence here!
And
daagh reasoning sounds apt. Any insights from your side please?
Posted from my mobile device"that" refers to the set of countries outside the Eurozone.
Think about what is being conveyed.
The Govt is starting legal action. On what grounds? On the grounds that the tax could ensnare some countries.
Which countries are these? The countries that are outside the Eurozone and do not adopt the law. Both characteristics are essential. It could ensnare these particular countries.
Hence, "comma + which" is not acceptable. In that case "which do not adopt the law" becomes additional information about these countries.
Also, we cannot write "countries that do not adopt the law outside the Eurozone" because it seems to imply that they do not adopt the law outside the Eurozone but they do adopt it inside (whatever that means!)
Hence, the only way to write this is:
... countries outside the Eurozone that do not adopt the law.
Both "outside the Eurozone" and "do not adopt the law" are essential to the meaning of the sentence.
(D) is correct.