AndrewN wrote:
imSKR wrote:
Quote:
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as that behind last week's rally: a surge in the economy to a 5.6% annual growth rate and improved corporate earnings balanced by the lack of signs of inflationary pressure.
A. that
B. those
C. what was
D. for that
E. they were
Hi
AndrewN sir
I was confused between A and E. Why can't the reasons be same for 2 different actions ( yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market and behind last week's rally)
Why i replace they with the subject, I should replace whole subject with the pronoun to decide whether it makes a sense or not, right? as:
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock marketbehind last week's rally: a surge in the economy to a 5.6% annual growth rate and improved corporate earnings balanced by the lack of signs of inflationary pressure.- reject because it doesn't make sense with whole subject.
OR
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
reasons behind last week's rally: a surge in the economy to a 5.6% annual growth rate and improved corporate earnings balanced by the lack of signs of inflationary pressure.-
need to replace with whole subject2. In what scenarios the reasons could be same for 2 actions? What if the reasons were same ( please assume) then how the sentence could be grammatically correct?
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
those reasons behind last week's rally: a surge in the economy to a 5.6% annual growth rate and improved corporate earnings balanced by the lack of signs of inflationary pressure. How can i correct this sentence, if i want to emphasize that reasons were same. Please suggest
Hello,
imSKR. If you follow the logic of the comparison, that between
reasons for/behind one outcome and
reasons for/behind another, it will lead straight to (B). In choice (A),
that does not stand in for anything that logically fits in the comparison:
rise?
stock market? Test them:
(A.1)
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as the sharp rise behind last week's rally(A.2)
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as the stock market behind last week's rallyNeither sentence is satisfactory. As for (E), it can look alluring if you do not insert it into the sentence, but once you do, you can see that
they were behind is nonsensical. The verb
were adds one word too many if you replace
they with
the reasons:
(E.1)
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as they were behind last week's rally(E.2)
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as the reasons were behind last week's rallyYou need a plural pronoun by itself to convey a logical meaning, and
those fits the bill nicely. I hope that helps. Thank you for bringing the question to my attention.
- Andrew
Apologies for the blunder. I meant B ( those) ; not A .
1.
My question was : To check pronoun ambiguity, when I need to replace pronoun ( those) with preceding noun . DO I need to understand replacing with entire subject (The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market ), or part of Subject (The reasons
for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market ) is also OK?
As per my initial understanding, we should replace GENDER pronouns ( THEY/HE /etc. ) with entire subject, but not part of it ?
The girls wearing pink dresses were doing shopping. They bought expensive watches and clothes.
( Scope of "they" refer to girls wearing pink dresses ) . If i use replace they with subject, i should understand as : The girls wearing pink dresses were doing shopping.
The girls wearing pink dresses bought expensive watches and clothes.
( please forgive me for asking a low level)
but for Demonstrative Pronouns ( THOSE/THAT) , only partial is OK
So keeping same concept,
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
THOSE behind last week's rally
So , i can understand B as :
The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
REASONS for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market behind last week's rally
2. Clarification:
Quote:
(E.1) The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as they were behind last week's rally
(E.2) The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as the reasons were behind last week's rally
Why do we need "WERE" ? Why the sentence is right without using were with " those" but wrong for not using were with " they " or " the reasons"?
(E.1) The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
they were behind last week's rally- CORRECT
(E.3) The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
they behind last week's rally- WRONG
(B) The reasons for yesterday's sharp rise in the stock market were much the same as
THOSE behind last week's rally- CORRECT
please confirm.