arya251294 wrote:
VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
Hello, everyone:
I'll take up the cause of "what does 'it' refer to in choice B" a little further. In B, not only does the pronoun "it" present a reference problem, but the phrase "were it to do so" also has no logical referent. Because we're already saying that "little polar ice melts", so "were it to do so" only confirms that, yes, it does melt...but we've already acknowledge that. Without a transition like "were MORE ice to melt", this phrase is illogical.
Interestingly, in Googling this question to see if I could find an official source for it, I've found an alternate version of choice B that begins:
were it NOT to do so
Even that seems dubious to me as that would also seem an illogical meaning (were little ice NOT to melt...), but the whole process makes me wonder a bit about the true wording of this question. B, as written, cannot be correct, but C doesn't look to be correct either (the "or else" is a bit of a run-on sentence). Does anyone have the original source on this one? Since there are a few versions of these answer choices out there, I wonder if the exact question is worded differently than we have it .
Hi,
I have a question regarding option C,
Why are we calling it a run-on sentence? Don't we have a conjunction 'or' to join 2 independent clauses?
Or am I missing something here?
Hello
arya251294,
We hope this finds you well.
To answer your query, you are not missing anything; Option C does not form a run-on sentence.
The error in Option C is one of meaning; the use of "or else" incorrectly implies that one of two things happens -
either little of the polar ice melts during the summer
or the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet; the intended meaning is that
if the polar ice melted during the summer, the water levels of the oceans would rise 250 feet.
We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
I don't know how I got that idea. Thanks for the clarification.