OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONProject SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
THE PROMPTQuote:
Clinical trials are the key to obtaining information about the safety and efficacy of new medications, and without volunteers to take part in it, there will be no new treatments for serious diseases like cancer, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis.
• This sentence is sneaky. Then again, so are SC writers.
→ The word
if is not present.
→ But
the phrase without volunteers to take part reveals that this sentence is describing a hypothetical or an alternative situation.
In other words, the sentence describes what
would happen if there were no volunteers.
→ The conditional is therefore necessary.
• Type 2 conditionals:
→ describe a hypothetical situation and its probable result
[If THIS thing were to happen] or [equivalent], then THAT thing would happen.
→ usually use
would in the result clause (main clause, THEN clause), but can also use modals such as
could or
might to express varying degrees of certainty
→ the present conditional form of any verb is composed of two elements:
would + the bare infinitive of the main verb (the infinitive without "to")
would go (
not would to go)
would seek (
not would to seek)
THE OPTIONSQuote:
A) without volunteers to take part in it, there will be no new treatments for serious diseases like cancer, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis
• the singular pronoun
it disagrees with its plural antecedent
clinical trials• the simple future tense
will be is incorrect; we need
would be• if forced, in order to introduce examples, choose
such as over
like. See Notes, below.
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
B) with volunteers to take part in these being absent, there would be no new treatments for serious diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis
•
these should point to a noun
→
these is a
determiner or a
demonstrative adjective.→ no official question of which I am aware has ever used
these as a stand alone pronoun
→ but recently, a correct official question used
this as a stand alone pronoun.
These is the plural form of
this.
• the phrase
with volunteers to take part in these being absent is wordy and awkward.
Compared to the correct option, the phrase is just crap.
But we haven't seen the correct option's wording yet, so
KEEP B tentatively and look for a better answer
Quote:
C) in the absence of the participation by volunteers, there will be no new serious disease treatments, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis
•
including is a fairly common way to introduce examples, but in this case, the meaning is absurd: cancer, MS, and arthritis are most certainly
not disease treatments.
Yes, we understand that
including refers to the diseases themselves, but we should avoid illogical writing
• the future tense
will be is incorrect; we need the conditional
would beELIMINATE C
Quote:
D) without volunteers to participate in them, there would be no new treatments for serious diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis
• I see no errors
→ the conditional
would be is used
→ the plural pronoun
them agrees with the plural antecedent
clinical trials→
without volunteers to take part in [the trials] is the most effective wording in this case because we need to express a contrary to fact situation and in English, "without" is a good way to express the hypothetical nature of the claim
• Option D is better than option B - ELIMINATE B
→ (D) uses
them to refer correctly back to clinical trials and thus avoids the problem of whether
these can be used as a stand alone pronoun
→ (D)'s phrasing is more direct and clear.
-- without volunteers to participate in them (D)
-- with volunteers to take part in these being absent (B)
The second phrase is a hot mess.
If you are reading in English (ahem), it should take you 2 seconds to decide that D is superior to B
KEEP
Quote:
E) without voluntary participation [by whom?], there are no new treatments for serious diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis
•
without voluntary participation is not as good as similar phrasing in option D
→ without voluntary
participants [implied: in clinical trials] would be better
• the present tense
are is fatal. We need the conditional,
wouldELIMINATE E
The answer is D.NOTESHidden conditionals or hypotheticalsTwo kinds of conditionals can get hidden fairly easily: zero conditionals and type 2 conditionals.
Zero conditionals (scientific truths, general facts) often do not contain an IF/THEN structure, but they lurk around.
I wrote about hidden zero conditionals in this post,
here.
If you see a verb split between
will and
would, start thinking about conditionals and hypotheticals.
I wrote about Type 2 conditionals
here.
Hypothetical statements occasionally hide themselves.
We find ourselves in a contrary-to-fact (hypothetical) situation without a clause such as "If we were."
In those cases, use
would.
LIKE v. SUCH AS distinction? Still true?If at all possible, I would follow the guideline that we use
such as to introduce examples.
We do not use
like to do so.
Like is used for comparisons.
Some controversy exists about whether GMAC has abandoned the distinction between
such as and
like.
This issue is not easily settled.
At least one official question uses "like" in the
non-underlined portion of the question.
That question is
here.We don't have a choice. The word "like" introduces examples.
[Sidebar. In CR and RC, I have seen "like" used to introduce examples.
Do not rely on prose in CR, RC, or the official guides as an example of GMAC's position on an SC issue.]
Many people believe that GMAC will abandon this preference soon.
Before I saw
OG VR 2020, I might have agreed.
I thought that one question would disappear from
OG VR 2020.
The question explicitly tests
such as and
like to introduce examples, although both incorrect options that use
like have an additional error.
The question did not disappear from
OG VR 2020.
Its official explanation states:
The preferred way to introduce examples is with the phrase "such as," rather than with the word "like," which suggests a comparison.
Spoiler alert: two incorrect answers to an official question are revealed
The official question (
OG VR 2020 #310) is
HERE.
In addition to the statement above, the author of the OE writes:
(A)
Like should be replaced by
such as.
Have been becoming is an incorrect verb tense.
(D)
Like should be replaced by
such as.
Those of is unnecessary and awkward.
Have been becoming is an incorrect verb tense.
At this point I would not use
such as/like as the only basis upon which to eliminate an answer, but if you narrow the answers down to two, choose the one that uses "such as."
• THIS [and THESE?] as a standalone pronounTHESE is the plural form of this. Some controversy exists: can this and these be used as standalones?
Answer: almost never.
I base my analysis of
these on analysis of its singular counterpart,
this.
THIS without a clear reference is almost always wrong.--
This is a "determiner." It "points" to the noun in question --
determines for us that it is
this noun, not
that one.
-- Typically, GMAC requires "this" to "point" to a noun:
this red chair near me, not
that white couch on the other side of the room. (
This and
that, used in this way, are also called "demonstrative adjectives." To demonstrate is to show, and adjectives modify nouns.)
-- For the first time that I know of,
OG 2020 published a question in which THIS was a standalone pronoun rather than a demonstrative adjective accompanied by a noun.
-- That is, GMAC allowed THIS to refer to a situation described but not actually named by a noun.
Spoiler alert: if you click on the link, the correct answer to a new official question is revealed
You can find that official question
-- be on the lookout. GMAC has signaled that "this" as a standalone is okay.
-- perhaps
these, standing alone, will also be okay. Eliminate other worse errors.
I doubt that GMAC will start allowing THIS or THESE as standalone pronouns on a
routine basis, but be aware that GMAC seems to have signaled that
this, standing alone, is allowed.
COMMENTSNipungupta9081 ,
chrtpmdr , and
Abhajadon , welcome to SC Butler.
I am glad to see new people—the more, the merrier.
I am always glad to see returning participants, too.
I like the variety of styles and the different ways of thinking that I see on display in these posts.
Some of these answers are very good indeed.
Kudos go to correct answers that contain clear explanations.