sumisachan
Psychologists have attributed the strange behaviour of teenagers to everything from
having a rash behaviour, which has never been explained, to their irresponsibility.
A. having a rash behaviour, which has never been explained,
B. having a rash behaviour, which was never explained,
C. their rash behaviour, for which there has never been an explanation,
D. their rash behaviour, which was never been explained,
E. having rash behaviour, for which there has never been an explanation,
fitzpratik , I think there is a typo in in D.
Should be which
Has never been explained.
"Was never been" is not grammatically correct, ever. "Was been" is never correct. That construction joins simple third person past form of TO BE with past participle of TO BE.
The participle "been" takes
have/has as its companion -- never IS, ARE, WAS, WERE, WOULD, COULD, etc.
The incorrect coupling of these two forms of TO BE (was been) creates a phrase so unintelligible that I cannot explain it.
sumisachan please check.
Please list the source of the question.?
And if there is indeed a typo in D, then
both C and D are "correct." This question is of poor quality. Don't worry about it.
Psychologists have attributed STRANGE behavior of teenagers to everything from their RASH
behavior, which "Has" never been explained, to their iresponsibility. (If the meaning of that sentence does not strike as incoherent, then it is time to start rewriting, in your own words, the meaning of official practice questions or QOTDs.)
1) How do you
explain strange behavior by referring to impulsive BEHAVIOR [which has never been explained??]
2) What does that lack of explanation have to do with anything? It's not logical.
3) STRANGE behavior might be attributed to rash
impulses and irresponsibility, but those two characteristics are not theoretically coherent, either.
Rash impulses and irresponsibility ARE strange behavior.
I would have to argue long and hard that the first two are both significantly distinct from strange behavior and that they are also explanations for strange behavior.
The logic is unsatisfying at best, and circular at worst.
Nor would any self-respecting social scientist explain one behavior ("strange," whatever that word means") by referring to a similar category of
behavior (strangely rash
behavior).
One behavior does not explain another behavior in this context. The source of strange behavior cannot be rash
behavior.
Bunuel , never mind.