Sentence Structure and Vocalbulary ??

[quyetchihochanh]

Hi teacher !
I'm having some trouble with my exercise. Here it is:

Select the best answer: Corporate executives who are unwilling .... calculated risk occasionally seldom manage to reach the very top.
A. at taking
B. taken
C. took
D. to take

I don't understand the structure of this sentence. Please help me to analyse it, or help me to understand the meaning. Thanks in advance.

 

[White Hat]

Corporate executives who are unwilling to take calculated risk occasionally seldom manage to reach the very top.
The correct answer is D.

To understand the sentence, we should isolate some of its parts:
Corporate executives, who are unwilling to take calculated risk occasionally, seldom manage to reach the very top.

 

[5jj]

Corporate executives who are unwilling to take calculated risk occasionally seldom manage to reach the very top.
The correct answer is D.

To understand the sentence, we should isolate some of its parts:
Corporate executives, who are unwilling to take calculated risk occasionally, seldom manage to reach the very top.

In your efforts to isolate parts of the sentence, you have changed a definining clause into a non-defining clause - and changed the meaning.
The sentence in blue suggests that it is only those executives who are not willing to take the occasional calculated risk who seldom make it to the top. The implication is that you have to take the occasional calculated risk if you wish to make it to the top.

The sentence in red suggests that all corporate executives seldom reach the very top. The relative clause describes all corporate excutives as people who ate unwilling to take a calculated risk occasionally, implying that this is the reason they seldom reach the

 

[White Hat]

I just didn't know how to isolate them and used the same punctuation rule we use in Russian, that is using commas before words like "who", "that". Do you get the idea? Here is what I meant:
Corporate executives who are unwilling to take calculated risk occasionally seldom manage to reach the very top.

 

[5jj]

I just didn't know how to isolate them and used the same punctuation rule we use in Russian, that is using commas before words like "who", "that". Do you get the idea?

Indeed. Unfortunately the punctuation conventions are different in English; mis-use can lead to misunderstanding. Compare:

1. Men, who abuse women, should be sent to prison for a long time.
2. Men who abuse women should be sent to prison for a long time.

#1 tells us that all men abuse women, and that all men should be sent to prison.
#2 tells us that certain men abuse women. These men should be sent to prison.

Only #2 is acceptable for all but the most fanatical feminist.

 

[emsr2d2]

Indeed. Unfortunately the punctuation conventions are different in English; mis-use can lead to misunderstanding. Compare:

1. Men, who abuse women, should be sent to prison for a long time.
2. Men who abuse women should be sent to prison for a long time.

#1 tells us that all men abuse women, and that all men should be sent to prison.
#2 tells us that certain men abuse women. These men should be sent to prison.

Only #2 is acceptable for all but the most fanatical feminisist.

Is a "feminisist" someone who insists on feminism? ;-)

 

[White Hat]

Thanks for this piece of information. I live and learn!

 

[5jj]

Is a "feminisist" someone who insists on feminism? ;-)

I am just trying to maintain my position here as king of the typos.

 

[emsr2d2]

I am just trying to maintain my position here as king of the typos.

Then I swear allegiance to you, Your Majesty. :-D