zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi
mikemcgarry,
Sorry for my ambiguous sentence.
Sorry for my late reply because I was busy with preparation for CNY (Chinese New Year )
My former intended that
arrival it's exception is replaced with
intended effect, which means
protect the engender marine species.
Please let my clarify my question.
First, I want to cite 2 scenarios :
#1 /
A: Have you checked C's plan?
B: Yes, I have done it last Sunday.
A: What do you think of the plan's intended effect ?
B: Bla bla bla..
#2/
A: What do you think of the plan's intended effect ?
B: Bla bla bla..
Scenario #1, there is a statement that B has read the plan.
Scenario #2, there is an assumption that B has read the plan.
So, my reason is if at the beginning, A raised a question that What do you think of the plan's intended effect , then, A must based on the assumption that B has read the plan.
Like this reason, if the argument raised a question about intended effect, then I based on the assumption that the commercial fishers will use the new nets.
Therefore, I will eliminate answer if it discuss whether the commercial fishers will use new nets or not.
Here, answer C intends to discuss whether commercial fishers will use new ones or not.
That's my cross off - reasoning.
Genuinely want your recommendations about my faults
Thanks in advance.
Have a nice day
>_~
Dear
zoezhuyan,
Happy new year, my friend! Happy Year of the Rooster! I'm happy to respond.
Unfortunately, your question is still hard to follow. One problem concerns the confusing use of letters. Normally, I would think that (A), (B), and (C) would refer to the answer choices in this question. Instead, I think what you have done is create an imaginary dialogue and given the characters these letter names. Now, an imaginary dialogue to illustrate a point is fine, but it's very confusing to use the same letters for characters as for answer choices. A dialogue among characters P, Q, and R would be perfectly fine.
Even assuming that the letter refer to characters in the dialogue, and not answer choices, what you are asking is still unusual. If I understand your question correct, I would say that the the distinction you are drawing doesn't matter.
Suppose I execute Plan J, with the intention that, say, more money goes to School Q. Then, suppose I leave the country or somehow never hear about School Q again. Now, zoezhuyan comes along and enacts Plan K, which happens to support Plan J. As a result of zoezhuyan enacting Plan K, it happens that School Q gets all the money it needs. In this scenario, even though I am totally out of the picture, my intended effect was still realized. It doesn't matter at all whether I am present or aware for my intended effect to be realized. Also, it doesn't matter whether zoezhuyan had the same intention. Maybe zoezhuyan didn't know a single thing about School Q or Plan J and simply was enacting Plan K for some other unrelated reason altogether. Even if it were "by accident" that School Q wound up getting money, an unintended consequence that was off everyone's radar, even then, it is still true that my intended effect was realized.
I don't know whether this answers your question. Let me know.
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)