daagh wrote:
Here the pronoun ‘whose’ logically and grammatically refers to the equity accounts. Equity accounts are more diverse and broad - based than index funds that deal only with index-based stocks
A. whose range of investments was less restricted -- correct choice
B. where there were investments that had a range that was less restricted—'where' is not an appropriate pronoun for accounts.
C. where they had a less restricted range of investments—same as in B
D. with less restrictions on the range of investments --- The comma before ‘with’ is a problem Because of the adverbial nature of the prepositional modifier, it modifies the entire clause lying before. The cannot modify the accounts. The quantifier ‘less’ also does not gel with the countable restrictions. It should be fewer.
E. having fewer restrictions on the range of investments – same problem as in D.
Hi
daagh: In D, I get your point that less shouldn't be used for countable items but regarding the modifier, I have a doubt. Prepositional modifiers can serve as adjectival phrases right? Why can't
with X modify a noun after the comma.
For example - With more than one hundred rupees in my pocket, I set out to the market.
I went back home, with panache and ...
Okay, I think, while constructing my line of thought, I got my answer but just to be sure - do you mean to say that when
with appears after a comma at the end of a sentence, it always modifies the entire clause?
Thanks