<p>SilverTurtle: I understand your argument now.
Your argument holds true, if “people” acts as a direct object. However, I’m not sure if that is true…we have to first delineate each part of speech…</p>
<p>provide resources for people to use</p>
<p>Since people is preceded by “for”, is “people” still a direct object??
…that’s the fundamental question…
I think “for people” is a prepositional phrase??? I’m not sure though…</p>
<p>@antonio- “i would still argue that hte original phrasing was more succinct and, for the most part, free of grammatical errors”</p>
<p>You would argue correctly; the original phrasing was more succinct and free of grammatical errors, however it contained an error of logic by suggesting pollution levels, rather than the agency, enforced state regulations.</p>
<p>@qwerty- “As of right now, I kinda buy silverturtle’s argument, but I’m not sure if College Board was looking for something so nuanced with the question. It really would be great if someone could remember the entire question and post it on here, though.”</p>
<p>Whether or not silverturtle is a “writing god”, the people who makes these tests aren’t the brightest people in the world. It’s possible that silverturtle is right but the ETS did not give it that much thought. I guess we’ll just have to see.</p>
<p>How do these answers look for numbers 30-35?</p>
<ul>
<li><p>“Windmills have their roots deeply ingrained in history.”</p></li>
<li><p>“However, it is not without its harmful effects.”</p></li>
<li><p>give more examples of the benefits</p></li>
<li><p>“In addition…” This one may have talked about people not welcoming the windmills somewhere.</p></li>
<li><p>Insert before sentence (9)</p></li>
<li><p>Delete solar power sentence</p></li>
</ul>