Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of [#permalink]
30 Jan 2005, 05:07
50% (00:00) correct
50% (01:19) wrong based on 14 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, Chinaâ€™s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.
a)took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
b)took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
c)took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
d)700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
e)to complete them too 700,000 artisans more than 36 years
Dear all, I've reviewed all of the threads about this one. But it seems to be no agreed answer. Could you think again ?
Consider this: "The book took me two days to finish". Or do you say "The book took me two days to finish it." ?
I say the first.
Vithal, this example from HongHu is just perfect. B cannot be the answer because the "it" is superfluous.
Paul, here is an explanation in one of the threads which has led to my confusion:
B is the best answer. You can remove all the extraneous information and summarize the correction sentence to:
"The army of terra-cotta warriors took 700K partisans more than 36 years to complete it."
The other option might have been the one which leaves it out. However, compare the following:
(1) The city bridge took 5 years to complete.
(2) The city bridge took the municipal employees 5 years to complete it.
Our situation falls into category (2).
In colloquial terms, it may be okay to omit the it at the end, but, in formal/written language, you'd almost always have to keep it. Since you've introduced a new subject (partisans) in the sentence, a transitive verb for this subject (complete) should be rounded off with a proper object (it).
BTW, I'm assuming that the "army of terra-cota warriors" is a structure.
also, with the sentence in its current state, I feel that "for completion" would be more appropriate than "to complete"
This is just a matter of using a prepositional phrase vs an infinitive phrase and each would be just as good. As for what was said by intrepid, I would have to disagree with it.
Just break down intrepid's sentence:
The city bridge took the municipal employees5 years to complete [it]
In red is the indirect object and in blue is the direct object. Should you remove the indirect object or not, it does not change the fact that personal pronoun "it" is superfluous since in this simple sentence, we already have a noun-subject and there is no such need.
Adding few cents of thought.
In the non-underlined portion of the sentence you can see that "army of X .... is" this indicates that collective noun is utilized thus in the underlined portion should unambiguously refer to that collective noun.
Choice A and E contains them thus can be given away with those options.
Regarding other choice please refer to Honghu and paul posts.