egmat wrote:
Passage
President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling political dynamics in countries across the globe, bolstering some candidates who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader and
potentially reshaping America's alliances.
1. potentially reshaping
2. who potentially reshape
Questions
Here are the questions for this passage:
1. What is the meaning per choice 1?
2. What is the meaning per choice 2?
3. Are the two meanings the same?
4. Is sentence per choice 1 logically sound?
5. Is sentence per choice 2 logically sound?
6. Is sentence per choice 1 grammatically correct?
7. Is sentence per choice 2 grammatically correct?
I look forward to your responses. Needless to say - kudos for correct and precise responses!
Regards,
Payal
Interesting question
Let's begin by analyzing the two choices:
Choice-1: "President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling political dynamics in countries across the globe,
bolstering some candidates who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader
and potentially reshaping America's alliances."
Analysis: Ok, so, President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling the political dynamics in countries across the globe. Fair enough. The next part of the sentence is a comma + -ing structure. This means it must modify the preceding phrase or it must present the
effects. Here, it is presenting the effects, which are:
1. bolstering some candidates who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader
2. potentially reshaping America's alliances
Thus, 'potentially reshaping' is basically denoting one of the effects of President Donald Trump's combative approach and showing how approach is scrambling the political dynamics in countries across the globe. It is noteworthy to notice that the use of 'and' here makes 'bolstering' and 'reshaping' parallel.
Choice-2: "President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling political dynamics in countries across the globe, bolstering some candidates who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader and
who potentially reshape America's alliances."
Analysis: Hmmmm. Interesting. This choice feels different from the first one.
the word 'who' in the phrase 'who potentially reshape' plays an important role here. Similar to first choice, the comma + -ing structure is presenting the
effects, which is
bolstering something. So, what is getting bolstered?
1. some candidates
who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader, and
2. the
ones who potentially reshape America's alliances.
Thus, 'who potentially reshape' is referring to those candidates who can reshape America's alliances. It is noteworthy to notice that the use of 'and' here makes 'who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader' and 'who potentially reshape' parallel.
Now, with this understanding let's tackle the questions:
1. What is the meaning per choice 1?
Ans: Clearly, from our analysis it means that President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling the political dynamics in countries across the globe, and this in turn is bolstering some candidates (who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader) and is (potentially) reshaping America's alliances.
2. What is the meaning per choice 2?
Ans: Again, President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling the political dynamics in countries across the globe, and this in turn is bolstering individuals who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader and who who potentially reshape America's alliances.
3. Are the two meanings the same?
Ans: A big NO!
4. Is sentence per choice 1 logically sound?
Ans: Yes. The President's approach may have these effects.
5. Is sentence per choice 2 logically sound?
Ans: No. Can a few individuals, bolstered by the President's approach change America's alliances? Wow, I'd like to be a person who can change a country's alliances!
6. Is sentence per choice 1 grammatically correct?
Ans: Yes.
7. Is sentence per choice 2 grammatically correct?
Ans: Yes.
Hope I'm correct
P.S. Another interesting observation: if we
add a comma before
'and' in the original sentence, it would again change the meaning completely. The meaning will then become: President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is having
three effects which are:
1. it is scrambling political dynamics in countries across the globe
2. it is bolstering some candidates who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader, and
3. it is potentially reshaping America's alliances.
I believe you have given a thorough explanation to this but i was wondering that why answer to question no. 5 is "No".
Statement-"President Donald Trump's combative approach to world affairs is scrambling political dynamics in countries across the globe, bolstering some candidates who promise to stand up to the new U.S. leader and who potentially reshape America's alliances."
Analysis- 1. Statement(Cause)-President Trump's approach is scrambling politics across the globe .
2. Effect-Supporting candidates who stood up to him and who would potentially reshape America's Alliances.
I don't think this line of reasoning is logically incorrect.