Conjunction & Punctuation

[vcolts]

Ex1:

There were several reasons for the breakdown of the party: The party officials failed to properly inform the new members; there was not enough cohesion in the first place; and the party platform was out of touch with the general public.

Ex2:

There were several reasons for the breakdown of the party: that the party officials failed to properly inform the new members; that there was not enough cohesion in the first place; that the party platform was out of touch with the general public.


*Please ignore spelling and the content of the sentence, as I just made it up.

Q1: Are both examples grammatically & punctuation wise correct?

Q2: I do not have the determiners (1), 2), 3)/ One, Two, Three,/ A), B) and etc). Is it okay without them?

Q3: Is the "and" in red necessary?

Q4: Is the "that" in red necessary?


Thanks in advance.

[5jj]

Ex1:There were several reasons for the breakdown of the party: T the party officials failed to properly inform the new members; there was not enough cohesion in the first place; and the party platform was out of touch with the general public.

Ex2: There were several reasons for the breakdown of the party: that the party officials failed to properly inform the new members; that there was not enough cohesion in the first place; that the party platform was out of touch with the general public.

Q1: Are both examples grammatically & punctuation wise correct? Note the changes I have made,

Q2: I do not have the determiners (1), 2), 3) [...] etc. Is it okay OK without them? Yes

Q3: Is the "and" in red necessary? It's certainly desirable.

Q4: Is the "that" in red necessary? It is inappropriate.

5

[vcolts]

Sorry to bother you so much :P.

I just found something like the following from one of the academic journals that I just read. I may have changed or take out one or two words but the construction and punctuation are the exactly the same (I was unable to copy and paste from the PDF file for some reason).


Ex:

This essay develops two philosophical postions: (a) that top-down accountability of some form is needed with the system; (b) that human rights must be protected.


Is "that" allowed because of the presence of the determiners?

Or is it just simply a matter of style? (one of major reasons why I end up coming here to check grammar!)

Or is it plain wrong?

[5jj]

Your sentence was about reasons. The one you found is about positions.

[vcolts]

Then if it's positions, I am allowed to do what the writer did?

errr so many rules.. and exceptions... grrrr...