What we need to make people realize drug-taking is self- destructive.
A. is B. is that C. was D. was that
The answer is “B. is that”. Why not “A. is”? I can’t make sense of it.
Who can help me get out of this? Many thanks in advance.
What we need to make people realize _____ drug-taking is self- destructive.
A. is B. is that C. was D. was that
The answer is “B. is that”. Why not “A. is”? I can’t make sense of it.
Who can help me get out of this? Many thanks in advance.
I am so sorry everybody. Is my sentence clear now?
If we take your original sentence and put the gap as below, "is" fits.
What we need ..........to make people realize (that) drug-taking is self- destructive.
What we need to do is get people to realize how self-destructive drug can be.
Does this sound natural?
Add an "s": drugs
And add a "to": What we need to do is to get people to realize how self-destructive drugs can be.
Now it sounds natural. It's a wh-cleft sentence or pseudo-cleft sentence, used for emphasis - a kind or rhetorical effect, similar to inversion and fronting. It might be a good idea to drop "do":
What we need is to get people to realize how self-destructive drugs can be.
Yes, I think it's better without "do". In this sentence "do" is rather superfluous, though not entirely wrong.
What is a pseudo-cleft sentence?
What is a cleft sentence?
Pseudo-cleft sentences | Grammaring ? The web of English grammar
Pseudo-cleft sentence Definition | Definition of Pseudo-cleft sentence at Dictionary.com
Last edited by PROESL; 09-Sep-2009 at 13:56.
What we need to make people realize is that drug-taking is self- destructive.
Yes, the answer is "B".
It's not A because "that drug-taking is self-destructive" is a predicate noun clause, or we could say just a predicate noun, perhaps. Technically, "that" is introducing the subject of a noun clause that is functioning as a predicate noun, and "that" is needed for this type of a clause. It seems strange, I think, because it's on the other side of the verb, which we typically understand to be an object, and noun clauses that are objects do need "that" - it's optional.
It functions as a predicate noun clause because it follows a form of the verb "be" - linking verb.
What's on one side of "is" equals what is on the other side.
What we need to make people realize = drug-taking is self- destructive.
What do we need to make people realize? Drug taking is self-destructive.
That drug taking is self-destructive should not be news any longer.
In the above sentence, "that" introduces a noun clause that functions as the subject of the verb "be".
"Drug-taking" is the subject of "is", and "That drug-taking is self-destructive" is the subject of "be" - verb phrase "should not be news any longer".
Last edited by PROESL; 09-Sep-2009 at 14:05.
What we need is to convince people that taking drugs is self-destructive.
I think that's a better sentence - maybe. It's another possibility, anyway.
What we need is to get people to realize how self-destructive drugs can be.
Can I say "getting" in place of to get?