dcoolguy
Hello Experts,
Whats wrong with D and E?
just eliminated them because of poor construction!
Is D wrong beacause "say its proponents" is enclosed within commas? (verb is closed and has no subject)
Whats the exact reason?
In (D), the subject of "say" is "proponents." So, the structure and use of that parenthetical clause are fine.
The biggest issue in (D) is that there is a poor connection between the aircraft's "skimming" and the fact that the aircraft "could fly between most points on Earth in under two hours."
Notice that (D) does not make clear that the aircraft would "fly between most points on Earth in under two hours" by "skimming." Rather, it makes the less clear point that, somehow, "because of its skimming," the aircraft "would fly between most points on Earth in under two hours" without clearly connecting the skimming to the rapidity of the flying.
Also, notice the use of "could" in (D), which magnifies the meaning issue. Because (D) uses "could" it communicates that "because of its skimming," the aircraft "could," or may possibly "fly between most points on Earth in under two hours." So, the skimming somehow causes a possibility.
Quote:
What about E
I don't see any pronoun issue "it's" can take logical antecedent-aircraft.
Is there any vital rule that 2 pronouns can't have 1 antecedent?
The use of "its" in (E) is not ideal. Though we can tell what the sentence is meant to communicate, since "skimming" closely follows "its" and "aircraft" is far from "its," the sentence seems to be saying "According to (skimming's) proponents.
At the same time, an even more significant issue with (E) is that it communicates that "skimming along the top of the atmosphere" makes a fact possible.
Notice that (E) does not say that the "skimming" is done by the "proposed new style of aircraft." Rather it seems to convey that skimming in general makes possible the fact "that a proposed new style of aircraft could fly between most points on Earth in under two hours."
So, the meaning conveyed by (E) is ridiculous.