alimad wrote:
The British Admiralty and the War Office met in March 1892 to consider a possible Russian attempt to seize Constantinople and
how they would have to act militarily to deal with them.
(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with them
(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessary
(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event
(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event
(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with it
Empire and Continent: Studies in British Foreign Policy from the 1880s to the First World War
by Keith M. Wilson (Author)
The Admiralty, impressed with the growth in size and quality of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and the War Office, in possession of disquieting intelligence about Russian intentions, met in March 1892 in the form of the Directors of Naval and Military Intelligence to consider the question of a possible Russian attempt to seize Constantinople and what naval and military action would be necessary to meet such a case.
This is what the sentence means:
A and B met in March to consider a possible Russian attempt to seize C and what military action would be necessary to deal with such an event.
They met to consider two things:
1. a possible Russian attempt to seize C
2. what military action would be necessary to deal with such an event
(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with themWe use 'military' as an adjective and as a noun. But the adverb 'militarily' is not used often. I would hope for something better.
Also, 'them' has no referent. We are obviously discussing how they will deal with such an action (a Russian attempt to seize C). So we cannot use plural 'them.'
If we mean how they will deal with Russians, then Russians haven't been mentioned at all. The only thing 'them' could refer to are A and B themselves. But that makes no sense.
(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessaryThe use of 'them' has the same problem as (A) above.
Also, the conditional if clause should use past tense 'if military action became necessary' and we should have a main clause in conditional mood with it 'how they would deal with it.' Hence something like the following could work:
A and B met in March to consider
- a possible Russian attempt to seize C and
- how they would deal with it if military action became necessary
(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event
Again, the use of 'militarily' is not clear.
It is better to use 'to deal' instead of 'for dealing'
(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an eventCorrect. 'military action' is clear in its usage.
(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with itThey were not considering the 'necessity' of the action. They were considering 'the action' that would be necessary if the said event took place.
I don't know how to start evaluating - 'what kind of military action in order to take.' It's simply garbage.
Again, 'to deal' is preferable.
Answer (D)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep