Tridhipal wrote:
Many doctors warn patients that if traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively, they will not always be capable of effectively addressing their illness.
(A) traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively, they will not always be
(C) traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively, these interventions are not always
Sourav700 wrote:
generisHi generis,
I was hoping if you could help me with a possible explanation for choosing C over A.
Thanks in advance!
Sourav700 ,
I can see your point. Good question.
I am not a huge fan of (C) because this sort of statement does not seem to be a general truth. (General truths are zero conditionals, in which we use IF simple present, THEN simple present).
To issue warnings, we typically use Type 1 conditionals (IF simple present, THEN simple future). Type 1 conditionals are a statement about a condition in reality and its probable result.
So my native ear preferred "will not always be" in Option A to "are not always" in Option C.
Option A suffers from pronoun ambiguity. Does
they refer to (1)
traditional methods for diagnosis? To (2)
homeopathic pharmaceuticals? To both?
Look at the weird contrast in the advice. We would expect the doctors to warn against NON-traditional methods for diagnosis. The doctors do not trust homeopathic (read: non-traditional) drugs.
More than one logical antecedent exists, a state of affairs that is textbook ambiguity.
We get down to A and C.
Option C uses
these interventions. (WHICH interventions? Homeopathic drugs? Traditional methods for diagnosis?)
Although I am not convinced that (C) is any clearer than (A),
GMAC prefers any kind of specificity to any kind of ambiguity.
Is demonstrative
these (interventions) any clearer than
they? Not really. I still don't know whether the doctors warn against (1) or (2) or both.
This question was a
really close call.
I'm not sure what "these interventions" means, but it's a noun phrase.
It's a confusing noun phrase.
Nonetheless, a named noun is better than an ambiguous pronoun even if the named noun is better in form only.
By a hair's width, option A wins. There cannot be multiple logical antecedents for a single pronoun. Fuzzy noun referent? Not as bad as pronoun ambiguity.
Hope that helps.
Posted from my mobile device _________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!