duybachhpvn wrote:
Hi
AjiteshArun,
Yes, from what I learned from Ron's video (Thursday with Ron series), "And" connector imply that 2 idea are independent from each other, not related. The 2 ideas in such case will be presumed to be independent (unless they are in sequence)
Example: A truck crashed in front of me on the freeway, and I was late to work --> if we only write the sentence like this, it implies that I was late to work due to some reason other than because of the truck crashing on freeway
To fix that example, we need to have additional connector to signify the causal: A truck crashed in front of me on the freeway, and I was THUS late to work
Appreciate your thoughts.
Generally speaking,
and can be used to show the consequence of something. Take a look at definition 1.2
here or 2a
here. However, what you have learnt is not wrong. It has just been applied as an absolute, whereas it is actually a preference (or, to put it more accurately, I like to think of it as a preference
). The word "sequence" is also problematic, because all causal connections involve a sequence (that is, any effect has a cause, or causes, that came before it) but a sequence is not enough to establish a causal relationship.
My advice to you is to apply this as a
preference. If we see an option that depends on an
and (alone) to establish a causal connection and another option that includes something like a
thus (or, more commonly, a "
, -ing"), then we should (strongly) prefer the second option.
What that means for us in this question is that we won't allow ourselves to get pulled into the
and vs. ", ing" call. Instead, because we consider SVA a more important issue, we'll take option E out (
grow) and avoid the issue altogether.