<p>@drac.
I did transcribe the other correctly. I remember it that is correct on all levels the choice that others are saying is a comPlete comma splice. However I could be wrong on the sound one. Not on the animals, that’s unequivocally correct</p>
<p>Still can anyone else confirm Divy’s logic regarding the “;of which” question</p>
<p>@drac even you copied it wrong so be quiet. It stated:</p>
<p>Since sound waves travel faster in air than they do in water, the speed of sound in air is faster than that of sound in water.</p>
<p>I confirmed it with my tutor and he said NE is correct as there is no gramatical error as presented even though the sentence could be improved. If you put a “that” for the whole phrase “speed of sound” it could be vague because you could then be comparing speed of sound to speed as that could only replace the speed. The fact that the “of sound” is there clears up the original sentence. He also said that “that” cannot replace a noun with a prepositional phrase in order to be accurate.</p>
<p>So, is this problem on the actual writing section? And if so what does that make the No Error count?</p>
<p>I wouldnt worry about that one, magenta, I am so positive about that question it is not even fair. I looked at the other choice in question and said “if only it was a semi colon” because as it stood there was a comma splice. IN FACT, I put that answer and went back and erased it because of the comma splice, the other answer fits because you can restructure that to say “Many of which” because the phrase was “of which many” it is fine. If it was just of which then it is an incomplete thought. Although it could be vague, that sentence is correct.</p>
<p>“many found nowhere else around the world” is not a complete thought and was separated by a comma, so that answer is correct and I checked that one over many times. anything that starts with “of which” does not express a complete thought and therefore a semicolon cannot be used its grammar 101</p>
<p>Of which is not correct. Which subordinates the clause therefore making it dependent and not an independent clause, the proper usage of the semi colon. The answer was certainly “,many found nowhere else” because that is a dependent clause and can follow a comma and does not create a comma splice.</p>
<p>Read up [The</a> Subordinate Clause](<a href=“http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm]The”>The Subordinate Clause | Grammar Bytes!)</p>
<p>Jman + 1</p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>Really? Many of which constitutes a complete thought however and that is exactly what is being said, albeit a little awkward. There is nothing wrong with what is being said, and taken in certain context the other answer can be a comma splice, making it wrong.</p>
<p>@000ooo:
Although that is entirely correct, what we are talking about is akin to “Many of which” not just of which. if it were “of which found nowhere else around the world” you would be correct, but the “many” means that it can stand alone; however, it is in an awkward phrasing.</p>
<p>Did you read what I linked? It is a dependent clause not only because it includes which but also because prepositional phrases cannot serve as subjects; therefore, by definition, it is not a complete thought and not the correct answer. Edit: many does not change anything. Where is silverturtle? He has the grammatical prowess that I lack to explain this…</p>
<p>What was the sentence with this “of which” dilemma? I don’t remember it. Can someone please remind me what the entire question was?
These are the sentences I chose “no error” for, that I remember:
- quince party
- Caribbean sea teeming with fishies
- speed of sound
- volcanic activity island occasionally
- I THINK THERE WAS ONE MORE BUT I CAN’T REMEMBER. does anyone remember?</p>
<p>It was the aspirin/walnut tree one.</p>
<p>The of which dilemma, as you called it, is the grammar question about species in Madagascar.</p>
<p>This is the question I had in my writing section:</p>
<p>“Sound waves travel faster through liquids than they do through gases but speed of sound through solids is greater than that of sound through liquids.”</p>
<p>The correct answer is: error in first part of the sentence, “they” because it is unclear if it refers to “sound waves” or “liquids.” Semantically it refers to “sound waves” but not grammatically though. It is important to realize that both “sound waves” and “liquids” are plural, and if “liquids” was “liquid,” then there is no error.</p>
<p>The second part of the sentence has no error because if you drop “of sound” in “that of sound”, then it is unclear whether it refers to speed or sound.</p>
<p>Grammatically, that sentence is fine. </p>
<p>“Despite research on (the diagnosis of heart disease) and the use of increasingly sophisticated technology (in its treatment), the condition of coronary arteries is still difficult to assess precisely.”</p>
<p>This sentence is grammatically correct. Yet, technically, its can refer to several things.</p>
<p>I’m sorry but I have to disagree I do not think the “they” refers to liquids at all because it specifically says “they do” which hints that they is reading something that is doing an action in the sentence. The liquids is the object of a preposition, not the subject that is doing the action so they undoubtedly refers to the sound waves</p>
<p>Replace “they” with “sound waves” and “liquids,” and both options are grammatically correct as well as make sense semantically. So, “they” is ambiguous.</p>
<p>How can they refer to liquids it doesn’t make sense in a sensical manner. It just plain doesn’t make sense if u were to replace they with liquids</p>