AsadAbu
Quote:
Scientists who studied the famous gold field known as Serra Pelada concluded that the rich lode was not produced by the accepted methods of ore formation but that swarms of microbes over millions of years concentrated the gold from jungle soils and rivers and rocks.
A. not produced by the accepted methods of ore formation but that swarms of microbes over millions of years
B. not produced by the accepted methods of ore formation but instead swarms of microbes over millions of years that
C. not produced by the accepted methods of ore formation but swarms of microbes over millions of years that
D. produced not by the accepted methods of ore formation but by swarms of microbes that over millions of years
E. produced not by the accepted methods of ore formation but that swarms of microbes over millions of years
Hi my honorable expert,
I'm not sure how 2 'and' has been used among 3 nouns (i.e., jungle soils, rivers, and rocks) without using any punctuation?
Thanks__
Public Service Announcement: do not waste your time looking for mistakes in the non-underlined portion of the sentence!
Unless, of course, they somehow cause a problem in the underlined portion.
I certainly understand why the construction looks strange to you - it's fairly unconventional usage to write A and B and C, rather than A, B, and C, but it isn't wrong. Remember that if we write "X and Y" we don't use a comma, so there's no reason why we absolutely have to use commas when we write X and Y and Z." The commas in a list are there to signal to the reader that one element has ended and the next has begun, but "and" performs the same function. Here, if they'd written "jungle soils, rivers, and rocks," it might seem as though the writer intended to convey, "jungle soils, [jungle] rivers, and [jungle] rocks," as opposed to "rivers" and "rocks"
in general. The "ands" avoid that ambiguity.
But ultimately, if we don't have the option of changing a construction, there's no reason to worry about it.
I hope that helps!