ravigupta2912 wrote:
Why does usage of “and” in B not make any sense? Is it because, then, in B, the pronoun “it” refers to the initial subject (illegal addition) which renders the construction as completely illogical?
I missed the little SV error in E and went for E, since C sort of conveyed that the hotel also owed two other hotels. I should have used slash and burn to remove the unnecessary phrases.
Cc
AndrewN help!
Posted from my mobile deviceHello,
ravigupta2912. I agree that spotting subject-verb agreement issues is vital to success on SC, so you want to pick off easier answers first. As for (B),
and is the wrong conjunction when an explanatory
for would do (even if this conjunction is rarely used and sounds overly formal). The first part of the sentence presents an intriguing lead-in:
The illegal addition of two floors is not the only trouble the hotel could face, ...Once we jump across the comma at the end of the first independent clause, we expect to see a
reason to justify the presence of
not the only trouble. Although the original sentence can be eliminated on subject-verb agreement grounds, it can also be eliminated for its comma splice: you cannot join two independent clauses in the manner presented by using nothing more than a comma. So, if we want (B) to work, the conjunction had better act as an appropriate semantic bridge between the two independent clauses.
And shifts the focus to some unrelated information, rather than completing the first thought. As I said earlier,
for would act in the capacity of a
because, and we can see that the second half of the sentence does, in fact, present the second problem. Of all the FANBOYS,
for is the only one that could work. (Remember that that "S" stands for "so," not "since.")
I hope that helps. (Did you notice the comma splice in (D) as well? Again, look for any compelling reason to eliminate an answer choice.) Thank you for thinking to ask me.
- Andrew