The spraying of pesticides can be carefully planned, but accidents,

daagh wrote:

My point is: Is there an issue of //ism here? Or are we trying to create a pseudo //ism by fancying something? In matters of list //islm, if you apply a tenet of //ism for one arm, then you must do that for all the rest too. Now in this case, you can not apply //ism of ‘Can be carefully planned’, to ‘weather conditions that cannot be foreseen’ alone. You must also parallelize other arms by saying some thing similar to “accidents that can not be prevented and pilot errors that can not be eliminated” etc” None of the choices does that. So parallelism is not the issue here.

The only difference between B and E is the way the weather conditions have been described. It is a question of idiom. B is better because, it uses the active voice ‘can not be seen’ instead of the passive ‘that are not foreseeable’.

This is simply a question of pronoun error and idiom

Dear

Actually, isn’t it all the way around? “cannot be foreseen” is the passive voice while “that are not foreseeable” is the active voice. Probably, back then it was a trend to think that the active voice is preferable to the passive voice. However, now we come to know that GMAC shows no such preference, since the correct choice B uses the passive voice.

Hi

Either B or D is grammatically correct, but the meaning the latter implies is nonsensical.

B.

weather conditions that cannot be foreseen

(by some people) – the passive voice correctly implies that it’s people who sometimes can or cannot foresee weather conditions. The inability to foresee belongs to people.

C.

unforeseeable weather conditions

D.

weather conditions that are not foreseeable

E.

unforeseeable weather conditions

“weather conditions that are not foreseeable” is equivalent to “unforeseeable weather conditions”. Both constructions have the same illogical meaning. C, D, and E incorrectly imply that weather conditions themselves are unforeseeable. i.e., as though the ability to be foreseeable or unforeseeable belongs to weather conditions, and that weather conditions themselves decide to be foreseeable or unforeseeable. That’s nonsensical.

To compare, consider “a foldable bicycle” or “a bicycle that is foldable”. We can write so because a bicycle itself has the quality of being foldable. We can also write “an unfoldable bicycle” again because a bicycle itself has such quality (construction), and not because we people fail to fold it. Folding doesn’t depend on us. Note that the same bicycle cannot be both foldable and unfoldable at the same time.

With weather conditions, however, the reverse is true. Weather conditions don’t possess the quality of being foreseeable. It’s we people who can or cannot foresee them. Foreseeing depends on us. The same weather condition either can be foreseen (with enough expertise or technology) or cannot be foreseen (without expertise or technology) at the same time. Once again, foreseeing is our ability, not weather conditions’. The passive voice in B is preferable for this reason – it correctly shows that the implied subject (people) is the one who cannot foresee.

No reputable press, such as The World Street Journal, The Economist, The Financial Times, The New York Times, writes “unforeseeable weather…”. You can check yourself by typing

site:wsj.com “unforeseeable weather”

or

site:economist.com “unforeseeable weather”

or whichever reputable press after

site:

_________________

Mission complete.

Signature Read More

Dear

daagh

Actually, isn’t it all the way around? “cannot be foreseen” is the passive voice while “that are not foreseeable” is the active voice. Probably, back then it was a trend to think that the active voice is preferable to the passive voice. However, now we come to know that GMAC shows no such preference, since the correct choice B uses the passive voice.Hi

dharam44

Either B or D is grammatically correct, but the meaning the latter implies is nonsensical.(by some people) – the passive voice correctly implies that it’s people who sometimes can or cannot foresee weather conditions. The inability to foresee belongs to people.“weather conditions that are not foreseeable” is equivalent to “unforeseeable weather conditions”. Both constructions have the same illogical meaning. C, D, and E incorrectly imply that weather conditions themselves are unforeseeable. i.e., as though the ability to be foreseeable or unforeseeable belongs to weather conditions, and that weather conditions themselves decide to be foreseeable or unforeseeable. That’s nonsensical.To compare, consider “a foldable bicycle” or “a bicycle that is foldable”. We can write so because a bicycle itself has the quality of being foldable. We can also write “an unfoldable bicycle” again because a bicycle itself has such quality (construction), and not because we people fail to fold it. Folding doesn’t depend on us. Note that the same bicycle cannot be both foldable and unfoldable at the same time.With weather conditions, however, the reverse is true. Weather conditions don’t possess the quality of being foreseeable. It’s we people who can or cannot foresee them. Foreseeing depends on us. The same weather condition either can be foreseen (with enough expertise or technology) or cannot be foreseen (without expertise or technology) at the same time. Once again, foreseeing is our ability, not weather conditions’. The passive voice in B is preferable for this reason – it correctly shows that the implied subject (people) is the one who cannot foresee.No reputable press, such as The World Street Journal, The Economist, The Financial Times, The New York Times, writes “unforeseeable weather…”. You can check yourself by typingoror whichever reputable press after_________________