Even though it was not illegal for the bank to share

[tim]

:)

[RonPurewal]

really nice explanation!

thanks.

[JaneC643]

Hi, Ron

Does the correct answer convey a wrong meaning: the attorney accuse the bank because the attorney fail to honor the promises to its customers? I know such interpretation is totally wrong, but here is an similar question:Recently documented examples of neurogenesis, the production of new brain cells, include the brain growth in mice when placed in a stimulating environment... You said the sentence is wrong because it means :"recently documented examples" rather than "mice" is placed in a stimulating environment. Quote: If you say "when + PAST PARTICIPLE", then this automatically applies to the SUBJECT of the clause to which it's attached.
I assume that two problems are similar in this respect, in other words, "by+doing" also applies to the subject of the clause to which it's attached.

Thank you for clarifying it!
Jane

[RonPurewal]

1/
you're quoting something that specifically mentions "when + __ed". the sentence at hand doesn't contain either of those elements.

2/
this idea extends to actions in general, even if they aren't strictly verbs.
e.g.,
james cheated at word games by using computer-based apps to find words.
tara accused james of cheating at word games by using computer-based apps to find words.
same principle.

[RonPurewal]

nb:
despite observation #1 above, the same idea extends to "when __ed".
e.g.,
james always quit when faced with significant challenges.
nora chastised james for always quitting when faced with significant challenges.

[RonPurewal]

...and, finally (and most importantly), the correct answers are not wrong.

• they will not have incorrect structures.
• their meaning will not be unreasonable.

if either of these appears to be the case—or if an existing "rule" seems to indicate that a correct answer is wrong—then that "rule" must be refined.

[CrystalSpringston]

can anyone please explain why E is wrong?
Thanks

two things:
(1) incorrect idiom: 'promise of keeping' is wrong. the correct form is 'promise to keep'.
(2) change in meaning: the correct meaning is what appears in the original sentence, namely, that the failure to honor promises WAS the deceptive business practice. choice e, with its use of 'because', implies that the failure to keep promises LED TO (other) deceptive business practices. remember that you have to interpret words like 'because' very, very literally.

Hi Ron,
I would like to understand more about the second point.
You said, "because of" here wrongly modified "deceptive business practices", leading to an ambiguity.
How do we know "becasue of" does not modify "accused the bank "?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

1/
when modifiers modify actions, they should modify the closest action. if not, the sentence is badly written.

[RonPurewal]

2/
even if you interpret the modifier in that way, the sentence still doesn't make sense.
if you write 'i accused someone of X because / because of Y', then 'Y' should be the evidence that is the CAUSE of accusation 'X'.
in particular, 'Y' should not BE the same as 'X'—in other words, it should not BE the substance of the accusation itself.

e.g.,
I accused my brother of stealing the food because no one else had been in the kitchen.
--> MAKES SENSE

I accused my brother of stealing the food because he took it and ate all of it.
--> NONSENSE
in this case, 'he took it and ate all of it' IS the theft of the food.
thus this sentence says, in essence, 'i accused my brother of stealing the food because he stole the food.' nope.

[CrystalSpringston]

2/
even if you interpret the modifier in that way, the sentence still doesn't make sense.
if you write 'i accused someone of X because / because of Y', then 'Y' should be the evidence that is the CAUSE of accusation 'X'.
in particular, 'Y' should not BE the same as 'X'—in other words, it should not BE the substance of the accusation itself.

e.g.,
I accused my brother of stealing the food because no one else had been in the kitchen.
--> MAKES SENSE

I accused my brother of stealing the food because he took it and ate all of it.
--> NONSENSE
in this case, 'he took it and ate all of it' IS the theft of the food.
thus this sentence says, in essence, 'i accused my brother of stealing the food because he stole the food.' nope.

Ron, I recalled the usage of because(of). I've made the same mistake before.
Thank you for reinforcing it to me.

[tim]

Let us know if there are any further questions on this one.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, I recalled the usage of because(of). I've made the same mistake before.
Thank you for reinforcing it to me.

sure.

[fionaw752]

A. by failing to honor its promise to its customers to keep
B. by its failure of honoring its promise to its customers to keep

Hi Ron,
I eliminate choice B because I think "by doing sth" is the correct form but not "by sth", am I correct?
thank you in advance

[RonPurewal]

it's possible for "by" to be followed by a noun (I solved most of the problems by brute force).

between those two choices, though, you have a perfectly straightforward RELATIVE judgment.
• choice A is objectively BETTER (more efficient / less wordy)
• choice B is objectively WORSE (less efficient / more wordy)
... so, eliminate B and keep A.

this is the same type of thing i dicussed here:
post118104.html#p118104