Originally Posted by jiangNo. You are close, but the word "much" adds a difference to the structure. In the correct version, "that" is a conjunction that exists to introduce a noun clause (which functions as the subject of the sentence]: That man has learned much from animals. If you change "that" to "what", what becomes a pronoun that must function as the object of the clausal verb. Then, "much" becomes a problem, because it is the clausal object. If you remove "much", the sentence would work with either "that" or "what", but the sentences would have different meanings.1. __ man has learned much from the behavior of animals is hardly new.
a. That b. What
The key is 'a'. But I think 'b' is also correct. 'a' means the fact that man has learned from the animals is hardly new. Or it is not something new that man has learned from animals. The word much is a noun. 'b' means the thing that has learned much from animals is hardly new. Or the content that man has learned from animals is hardly new. Am I right?
No, you can't. This one is rather complex. There is a grammar issue with "due to" versus "owing to" as a compound preposition. Classically, grammarians have objected to "due to" as a preposition, preferring "due" to be only an adjective. In this construction, the main clause boils down to: part has been due to collapse and effect. The preposition "owing to" does not fit there. The verb is a linking verb and calls for a noun or adjective as a complement. In this case "due" is an adjective, meaning "capable of being attributed" and the "to collapse and effect" is a trailing prepositional phrase.2. During an earthquake, the great part of damage and loss of life has been_______collapse of buildings and the effect of rockslides, rather than from the quakes themselves.
a. due to b. owing to
My question is What's the difference between due to and owing to? Can I choose b?
BTW, the objection to "due to" as a preposition is ignored by most.
This is pretty picky in my opinion. The choice of "needn't" is better because of the modal "could" in the second sentence. If "shouldn't" is used in the first, it should also be used in the second. This has to do with the meanings of modals. "Needn't have" means it wasn't necessary; could gives an alternative. "Shouldn't have" means a rule. Understand that either would be grammatical in the first sentence, however.3. You ______ the class to tell me that. You could have come up to me afterwards.
a. needn't have interrupted b. shouldn't have interrupted
The key is 'a'. But I think 'b' is also correct. 'a' means it was uncessary for you to interrupt me. 'b' means you are wrong in interrupting me. Am I right?
"Rather than" can be a conjunction or a preposition. As a conjunction it means "and not", as "in shaken rather than stirred". It is that use that calls for parallel items. In this case, "rather than" is a preposition calling for a noun object. Choice a is the best; it is a bare infinitive noun. I would also say that choice c is correct; that would be a gerund noun. The only reason to choose a over c is that an infinitive is often used for potential action and a gerund is often used for actual action. Since this action has not occurred, the infinitive would be more idiomatic.4. Rather than ______trouble, he left.
a. cause b. to cause c. causing d. caused
The answer is 'a'. I know rather than should be followed by parallel parts. Then can I choose d?
You're welcome! :DThanks!