25. The correct answer is (C). The original suffers from three weaknesses. First, the subject of the sen-
tence is the plural noun justifications, so the verb should be the plural are. Second, the material that
follows the is must here be a noun or a noun substitute such as a noun clause. But in the original, what
follows the is is an independent clause. Third, the pronoun they has no referent. It could refer to
physicians if that word appeared in the sentence, but physicians does not appear—only physicians’.
(C) corrects these errors. It uses the plural are and creates a noun clause by using that, and it uses the
noun physicians in place of the incorrect pronoun. (B) and (D) fail to correct the errors. While (E)
does correct the verb problem, it distorts the intended meaning of the original. For example, (E) says
that the justification for high fees is increasing insurance premiums, when in fact the justification is
the need to pay those premiums.
26. The correct answer is (C). The original is afflicted with the notorious dangling modifier. In gen-
eral, a modifier should be placed as close as possible to what it modifies. Here, visiting is intended to
modify soldier, but those two words could not be any farther apart. Consequently, the natural ten-
dency, when reading this sentence, is to hook visiting to the first noun in the main clause: pace. Thus,
the sentence seems to assert “the rapid pace of reconstruction is visiting Europe.” (C) corrects this by
placing the word modified in its proper position. (B) fails to make the needed correction and seems to
assert that the reconstruction is visiting Europe. (D) and (E) do make the needed correction, but the
use of who in (D) places the verb was amazed in a relative clause and turns the entire sentence into a
fragment, and (E) is awkward compared to (C).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
