manishcmu
Shrattitude
manishcmu
Shrattitude
Many beef-exporting countries found themselves in the middle of a series of trade bans because of the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy reported in the year 2000 and spreading panic around the world over the consumption of beef products from specific regions.
a. because of the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy reported in the year 2000 and spreading panic around the world
b. that was caused by the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy reported in the year 2000 and spreading panic around the world
c. due to the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy reported in the year 2000 and spreading panic around the world
d. reported in the year 2000 because the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy spread panic around the world
e. because of the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy reporting in the year 2000 and spreading panic around the world
Imo A
A is correct
B that can not refer to plural noun " bans " and use of singular was is incorrect for plural nouns .
C Due to can not used here as it can only modify nouns .What we have here is clause so this choice is incorrect.
D Changes structure and changes meaning .It seems to suggest bans reported .
E Again meaning is not correct it seems to suggest that spongiform encephalopathy did the act of reporting .What we need here is proper passive voice to make meaning correct .
When you say that
"due to" can not be used to modify
a clause. Here isnt
"due to " modifying the "case of bovine desease" which is a
noun + 2 modifiers.
Due to modifies the effect, not the cause.Hi
manishcmu, thanks for response,
i wrote to
arvind910619 responce where he stated that
due to cannot refer to a
clauseSo what you mean to say is it is modifying the
effect (trade bans) and not the
cause (case of bovine desease).
Still my question remains the same. Is it not an noun (trade bans / bovine desease). There is no action (verb). So why not the use of
Due to?
Due to is "trying" to modify the clause -
Many beef-exporting countries found themselves in the middle of a series of trade bans, which is the effect in the form of clause. Due to is not modifying "trade bans". Here is a simple example - The delay in bus service was due inclement weather. Here , due to modifies the noun phrase - "delay in bus service". However, if I write - the bus was delayed due to inclement weather. This is wrong because due to is trying to modify the clause - "the bus was delayed ". You see there is a subtle difference in the two sentences . In one, we used a noun phrase and in the other we used a clause to convey the same idea. Hope this helps.
Hey.. from what I grasped, the modifier here needs to be one that modifies the NOUN (trade bans). "Because of" is illogical because as you said, it modidies the action of finding.
Many countrires
found themselves in crisis
because of a disease and the panic. They do not find that beccause of the two reasons. They find that while the two things going on. Let me make an analogy.
I find myself in lockdown because of the coronavirus and the Pandemic.There exists no causality between the disease and the action that I find it. The effect of the two things is lockdown, as that of the two in original sentence is the bans.
In another word, the lockdown is due to the virus and the Pandemic. And the bans are due to the disease and panic.
Instead, because I was stopped by the patrol police, I found myself in lockdown. And because of the sharp decrease in beef export, the countries found themselves in deep sh*t.
In all, I really see no reason to go for choice A. Wish you could come up some more to convince me.