Quote:
A. year toward the cost of higher education, previously paying $7 per year
anairamitch1804 has a good explanation for why this option is wrong. In this option, it seems that the students are protesting while they are also previously paying $7 per year. Actions can't happen simultaneously if one of those actions happened previously.
Also, it's not clear what they were previously paying $7 per year for. In other options its clear that the $7 per year is in place of the $330 per year.
Finally, some people have pointed out that "paying" could either be modifying "students" or "law". As demonstrated in
this question, "paying" could modify either "students" or "law". However, this would introduce only slight ambiguity. So slight that I don't think that this ambiguity alone would be enough to rule out (A).
Quote:
B. year toward the cost of higher education, for which was previously paid $7 per year
This option is actually not grammatical. The relative which clause has no subject. The clause can be read like this:
For [the cost of higher education] (blank subject) was previously paid $7 per yearOr like this:
(Blank subject) was previously paid $7 per year for [the cost of higher education]Quote:
C. year, compared to the previously $7 per year, toward the cost of higher education
"Compared to" is not the same as "instead of" or "as opposed to". Thus, "compared to" changes the meaning of the sentence and we don't know that the $330/yr has been substituted for the $7/yr. We only know that they are compared.
Also, "previously $7 per year" is grammatically correct but gives the sentence a different meaning than the one we intend. See my previous post for a more in-depth explanation.
Quote:
D. year toward the cost of higher education, instead of the $7 per year required previously
This sentence looks good
Quote:
E. year as opposed to the $7 per year required previously for the cost of higher education
I think this one is pretty close to the right answer, but it seems to be inferior to choice (D).
"toward" is a little more exact than "for", but I think only slightly. I personally wouldn't eliminate (E) on that alone.
I think the most important issue with this option is that "as opposed to the $7 per year required previously" is not set off with commas. This really feels like a non-essential fragment. It doesn't the clarify the meaning of "$330 a year" and so I think it needs to be set off with commas. Grammarly calls these situations
interrupters. Wiki calls them
non-restrictive clauses.
I think this option would be much better if it instead read:
year, as opposed to the $7 per year required previously, for the cost of higher educationFinally, I'd like the "for the cost of higher education" to come before the "as opposed to...". I think this makes the sentence easier to read. In comparisons, we use ellipses quite a bit and I think the ellipses work better at the end of a clause - just like I think pronouns with antecedents are easier to read than pronouns with postcedents. Though, I wouldn't eliminate an option based on this alone.