arorag wrote:
Ozone, a special form of oxygen that screens out harmful ultraviolet rays, reaches high concentrations twelve miles above Earth, where it has long appeared that it was immune from human influence; we have now realized, though, that emissions of industrial chlorofluorocarbons deplete the ozone layer.
(A) has long appeared that it was immune from
(B) has long appeared to have been immune from
(C) has long appeared as being immune to
(D) had long appeared immune to
(E) had long appeared that it was immune to
This is an entry in Garner’s Modern English Usage. By no means is it dispositive, but it illustrates the danger in assuming one Idiom must be correct in all cases.
“Immune. May take the preposition TO or FROM, depending on nuance.
What you are “immune from_____” can’t touch you; what you are “immune to_____” may touch you but it has no effect.
To be “immune to” something is to be impervious to it:
“(The company) is immune TO the ups and downs of war and the economy.”
“Despite it’s considerable resources, Intel is not immune TO market forces.”
on the other hand, to be “immune from_____” something is to be free of some duty, liability, or restriction that others are subject to
“Judges are immune from such lawsuits.”
“(Several states) agreed last month to require that all investment houses….make stock analyst reports immune from influence by the investment banking side of their firms.”
I do believe in this case that “immune to” works better than “immune from”
—-humans have attempted (unintentionally) “to influence” the ozone for years through pollution and other such harmful acts. The prior belief was that the Ozone was immune TO these human influences.
—- it we were to say “the Ozone is immune FROM human influence”, the meaning implied would be that humans are incapable of affecting or influencing the Ozone (not true)
So, in this case “immune TO human influence” makes the most sense. However, which idiomatic construction to use may be a harder decision in another context.
Posted from my mobile device