i have some issue with option c- we dont have that after announced. Also, use of would make sense. The company announced that it would close...was closing means during the announcement itself, the company closed. please help me to understand the OA

Ideally "that" would be used. This question seems to be an exception.

The past continuous "was closing" is alright. This tense usage implies that at the time when the announcement was being made, the process of closing had already started and was continuing, i.e., some of the one fourth of the stores had already been closed, while the others hadn't been.

("Would" would also be alright - this tense would imply that the process of closing had not started when the announcement was being made.)

egmat, mikemcgarry and daagh

Option C is correct but "it is " after "announced" - Unable to understand sentence structure. It is single sentence ? Do not see logical transition.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, which owns the Record Town and Saturday Matinee retail chains, announced that since sales of up to one-fourth of its stores are poor, they will be closed.

C. it was closing up to one-fourth of its stores because of poor sales

I do not think that dropping of 'that' is an issue here. The grammar custom in written and spoken language is that one can drop the relative clause connector 'that' even in reported speeches if a noun or noun phrase follows the word.

Example: 1. On reaching the Airport, I realized (that) I had not brought my passport.

2. The minister gloated (that) the country ultimately got a well-qualified and deserving Judge for the top court.

3. The priest realized quite late (that) his preaching made people snooze

In all the above cases, we may see the dropping of the relative clause connector 'that' does not make any difference.

4. If you want an official example, then this is the one. But, there are many more I am sure.

However, one cannot drop 'that' if there is only a verb after it. Because 'that' in such cases acts as a subject of the verb and as such by dropping it you might end up in a subject -less clause

Example

1. MGMAT sells some books that are called five-pound books

2. On reaching the Airport, I could not spot my passport that is required for even entry into the premises.

Try dropping 'that' in these cases, you will find that those clauses do not mean sensibly.

We can confidently pass C.
_________________

Hi,

I am trying to understand why B is wrong. I chose B because 'which' refers to the preceding noun - one fourth of the stores.
Reading the answers , I am now somehow convinced that tense is also a problem with option B. But is the use of which wrong here??
Can someone explain?


Thanks.

Hi anshriv91, the absence of a causal indicator (because) is compromising the meaning in B.
_________________

In this question I really thought that we need that after announced. How do we make the distinction whether that is need or not in such reporting verbs?

I think you can keep this issue on low priority and look for major key errors first.
I found A has pronoun error which is major.

that since sales of up to one-fourth of its stores are poor, they will be closed
As you might have read in above posts, that after replace they with 1/4th of its stores or replace with sales?

The question you want to ask yourself is whether the absence of "that" creates confusion or ambiguity.

Consider an example:

Dana believes that Harry, who played professional rugby for several years, is a better athlete than Tim, who was cut from his kindergarten kickball team.

Here, "that" tells us that a full clause is coming, so the thing Dana believes is that Harry is a better athlete than Tim. Clear enough.

Now watch what happens if we remove "that":

Dana believes Harry, who played professional rugby for several years, is a better athlete than Tim, who was cut from his kindergarten kickball team.

Without "that," there's no reason to think a full clause is coming, and so it seems, at first, as though Dana may believe Harry himself. If you reread the sentence and skip over the long modifier, could you eventually figure out what the writer intended? Probably. But it's initially confusing. So while there's no rule that "that" must be used here, the version with "that" is clearer than the version without, so in a side by side comparison, it would be preferred.

The takeaway: try reframing how you're thinking about this issue. Rather than ask yourself whether "that" is required in certain instances, ask yourself whether the versions without "that" is more ambiguous or confusing than the ones that contain it. If "that" clarifies things, you've got a good decision point. If the presence or absence of "that" seems to have little impact on the clarity of the sentence, move on to other issues.

I hope that helps!
_________________

OA is C.

it was closing up to one fourth of its stores because of poor sales

I eliminated this by thinking that 1/4 of its stores are closing and these stores are having poor sales.
But in the option it is just mentioned because of poor sales and it didnt mention poor sales of what?
- poor sales of these stores
- poor sales of the entire corporation.

Can some one help where i am thinking wrong here.

Thanks in advance.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, which owns the Record Town and Saturday Matinee retail chains, announced that since sales of up to one-fourth of its stores are poor, they will be closed.

(A) that since sales of up to one-fourth of its stores are poor, they will be closed

First "they will be closed " they is refering to what?
Also why is "will" used when announcement was done in past? Would for talking about future event in the past

(B) it is closing up to one-fourth of its stores, which accounted for its poor sales
it is closing if announcement is done in past why would you say corporation announced "it is closing" in present tense

(C) it was closing up to one fourth of its stores because of poor sales

(D) to be closing, on account of poor sales, up to one-fourth of its stores
announced to be closing?

(E) having poor sales, such that up to one-fourth of its stores will be closed
announced having poor sales?

normally, if the main clause is in the past, the subordinate clause is also in the past. the exception to this rule is that if the subordinate clause is a timeless fact, simple past can be used.
he said the earth is circle.

our problem is not the exception, so, the past tense must be used. only choice C is correct

Hi! In A do we have tense error too because there is reported speech so "are poor" won't make sense unless its a general truth or fact. Am I right? AndrewN IanStewart

Hello, pk6969. Did you check out this earlier post on the subject by mikemcgarry? Although I would not say that are is inherently incorrect, because the sentence conveys what someone announced, the past tense was is more fitting (certainly less debatable). I like the point that daagh brought up in one of his posts above about the shifting tenses—past, present, and future—in the original sentence. It is much easier to follow a sentence that keeps its tenses consistent: (C) opts for a more streamlined past-past in announced... was. (Yes, owns notwithstanding. We cannot negotiate that part of the sentence.)

- Andrew

Meaning wise option A, D, E can be ruled out.

option B is in present tense and wordy compare to answer option C.

Answer option C is good option.

Hope it helps.