daagh wrote:
If there is a choice between a weird clause using ‘not unlike’ but without any other flaws and another one with 'like' but with other ostensible errors, then the ‘not unlike’ version is acceptable.
Of course, if the comparison marker ‘like’ were to replace ‘not unlike’, then the replacement would certainly be for better.
I found a beautiful explanation for usage of "
not unlike". It explains where "not unlike" could overpower normal and precise "like".
Check for the comments given by
sunnyjohnHey Guys,
there is a good concept here, if you see Option A
unlike : not like
so it means : was not not like...
that really confused me, but there is no other option here which matches the answer.
Here is some information i found on internet on the usage of 'not unlike':
It is quite common to use such a structure in English, and it's not considered a double negative. For example, we say things like "the new law is not unfair," "the car was not inexpensive," or "his comments were not unrelated."
We usually do this, as I explain in class (almost everybody asks the same question about this SC), when we want a little "wiggle room," i.e., some room for error in our sentence.
Think of an adjective as having three degrees of quality, rather than only two. Things are not often "like" or "unlike;" they often fall in the middle--not quite "like," but not quite "unlike," either.Let's take the above example of a car--if I told somebody I'd just bought, say, a new Honda Accord, some people (who can afford BMW's or Mercedes') might say that that car is an inexpensive one. I might respond that, to me, it's "not an inexpensive car."
In this case, I'm saying that the Accord falls into the middle area, between expensive and cheap.1. Isn't
"the new law is not unfair," -- does this mean the new law is fair(polar opposite) or does this mean that the new law is anything but unfair(a kind of logical opposite) ?
"the car was not inexpensive," -- this is explained in BTG quote as highlighted above