Since fanatics usually regard themselves as self- less patriots eager

Hello, everyone. I thought I would take the time to write a detailed explanation prior to any official explanation that may be forthcoming. I am surprised to see an official question from a paper test that has apparently not been posted before. In any case, how about we take a look at the sentence?


This is both grammatically and idiomatically fine. Some sentences might spell out the verb to be at the end, as in, however ruthless the countermeasures may be, but the verb can be left out as an understood element. A different sentence might adopt a similar ending within a regardless framework: regardless of the countermeasures [taken]. Since countermeasures are understood as actions, we may not need to add an action (verb) on top. If you were unsure at this point, you could place the answer on hold, but do not get rid of an option simply because you are unfamiliar with something. Go for easier targets first.


I will admit that whatever here grated on my nerves like nails dragging across a chalkboard. However from the original sentence was fine, so why swap it out for this new transition? A couple words more, and whatever the ruthless digs an even deeper hole, neither idiomatically nor semantically sound: the noun ruthlessness would at least be acceptable. Finally, a hypothetical scale of ruthlessness should adopt a different verb tense: may be is better than the more definitive there is. This one is just a mess.


Threat? I read this as a typo at first. Yes, countermeasures can pose a threat, but the end of this answer choice does not deliver to that end, adding commentary instead in are ruthless. Either countermeasures should be described as a threat or as being ruthless, but the two descriptions share space uncomfortably here. To be honest, I cannot think of any word that could replace threat to salvage this option—whether is about as close as I can get.


This option may not be out-and-out wrong like (B) or (C), but notice that the sentence has changed the one-word adjective ruthless from the original sentence into the two-word noun the ruthlessness here. That is a less concise alteration. Then, the countermeasures themselves are no longer active as a standalone noun, but have morphed into an object of a preposition instead. If this answer choice sounds stuffy or antiquated, it should. The two main changes have added nothing in the way of clarity or conciseness to the sentence.


I am next to positive that thought should be though, but it is really there are that I would like to draw attention to. This construct cushions the meaning of a sentence by delaying what it is about, occupying the place where the subject tends to be. Again, we want to understand that countermeasures against fanaticism (and, by extension, the fanatics who hold such views) typically do not succeed in controlling those beliefs. There are does not effectively convey that anyone is adopting ruthless countermeasures in their efforts, just that such countermeasures exist. So, while I would not dismiss this answer choice on the grounds that it changes the meaning of the sentence, I would call it suboptimal in its clear and concise expression of vital meaning. For this reason, I would favor the original sentence.

I hope that helps. I would be happy to discuss any lingering concerns. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew