Prep Questions - Trans World Entertainment Corporation

[sandeep.19+man]

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, which owns the RecordTown and Saturday Matinee retail chains, announced that since sales of up to one-fourth of its stores are poor, they will be closed
A. that since sales of up to one-fourth of its stores are poor, they will be closed
B. it is closing up to one-fourth of its stores, which accounted for its poor sales
C. it was closing up to one fourth of its stores because of poor sales
D. to be closing, on account of poor sales, up to one-fourth of its stores
E. having poor sales, such that up to one-fourth of its stores will be closed

Will the tutors please confirm why the other options are wrong

A. pronoun ambiguity. "they" refers to sales not stores

B. stores should be limited with a restrictive clause: "stores that"

C. meaning not clear. but the best of the lot?

D. announced to be closing is wrong?

E. "announced......sales" as opposed to "announced.....closing" which was the intended meaning

Thank you

[mschwrtz]

A. pronoun ambiguity. "they" refers to sales not stores

Yes.

B. stores should be limited with a restrictive clause: "stores that"

Sort of. The nonrestrictive clause used in B is wrong, but simply trading which for that (and dropping the comma) wouldn't solve all of B's problems. Think about what's wrong with B, not about how B could have been better.

C. meaning not clear. but the best of the lot?

Yes.

D. announced to be closing is wrong?

Yes, and I'm not crazy about on account of, unless it's followed by rain.


E. "announced......sales" as opposed to "announced.....closing" which was the intended meaning

No. E is a train wreck. It doesn't say announced...sales. It says announced having.... where having is presumably a gerund. It's got lots of other problems too.

[phuonglink]

C is correct. (A) has simple present tense which does not agree simple past tense 'announced"
I've just been confused the underlined word "that" in original sentence.

[tim]

can you be more specific about what your concern is with the "that"?

[phuonglink]

can you be more specific about what your concern is with the "that"?

at the time i unfolded the concern above i had the bad habbit of learning by heart some rules so this problem really hearts my belief that "announce" should be followed by "that". i may eliminate the thinking "announce that" always out of my head????

[RonPurewal]

can you be more specific about what your concern is with the "that"?

at the time i unfolded the concern above i had the bad habbit of learning by heart some rules so this problem really hearts my belief that "announce" should be followed by "that". i may eliminate the thinking "announce that" always out of my head????

well, since the correct answer contains "announce(d)" without "that", you now know that you don't need to use "that" in this construction.
remember -- correct answers are correct; any construction that appears in an officially correct answer must be ok, in terms of both grammar and meaning.

--

by the way --

in general, it's dangerous ever to assume that a construction MUST contain the word "that" -- in the vast majority of these constructions, you can substitute a noun for the clause beginning with "that" and still have a legitimate sentence.
grammatically, the reason is that the clause starting with "that" plays the role of a noun. therefore, by taking out the clause and replacing it with a noun, you are actually not altering the grammar of the sentence at all.

examples (ALL are ok):

I proposed that we meet on Wednesday rather than Tuesday.
I proposed a new meeting time.

James estimated that he had not seen Thomas in three months.
James estimated the length of the corridor.


This report indicates that crime is increasing in our neighborhood.
This map indicates all locations at which violent crimes have been committed in the last week.

etc. etc.

you can even have sentences in which this kind of thing is the subject, although that's not very common (because there are usually less wordy / more direct ways to write such sentences).
e.g.
That Maya was on time to the meeting was a shock to everyone, including Maya herself.


in fact, now that i think about it, i can't come up with even one construction that actually requires the word "that" in this way -- in every example i can conjure up, the "that"-clause can be replaced by a noun. so, be careful.

[phuonglink]

thank you for correcting my thinking.

[jnelson0612]

Good discussion--thank you all!

[kvitkod]

Please, smb, explain why we should use a restrictive clause here (what is wrong with the non-restrictive one - for me these two forms of the clauses are interchangeable here).

Thank you

B. stores should be limited with a restrictive clause: "stores that"

Sort of. The nonrestrictive clause used in B is wrong, but simply trading which for that (and dropping the comma) wouldn't solve all of B's problems. Think about what's wrong with B, not about how B could have been better.

[jnelson0612]

Please, smb, explain why we should use a restrictive clause here (what is wrong with the non-restrictive one - for me these two forms of the clauses are interchangeable here).

Thank you

kvitkod, there is some good information here on the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses: post21393.html

I'd like you to read that thread and then think about whether a restrictive clause is appropriate. Please post back once you've given it some thought. I think this will best help further your learning. :-)

[akhpad]

examples (ALL are ok):

I proposed that we meet on Wednesday rather than Tuesday.
I proposed a new meeting time.

James estimated that he had not seen Thomas in three months.
James estimated the length of the corridor.


This report indicates that crime is increasing in our neighborhood.
This map indicates all locations at which violent crimes have been committed in the last week.

etc. etc.

in fact, now that i think about it, i can't come up with even one construction that actually requires the word "that" in this way -- in every example i can conjure up, the "that"-clause can be replaced by a noun. so, be careful.

Hi Ron,

Above examples are correct but I believe that it doesn't address the intended concern in question.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation announced X.
Here X is a clause and not a noun or noun phrase. If GMAC has not mentioned THAT, we have to think it has as all others have problem.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation announced that X.

[RonPurewal]

Trans World Entertainment Corporation announced X.
Here X is a clause and not a noun or noun phrase. If GMAC has not mentioned THAT, we have to think it has as all others have problem.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation announced that X.

there are some exceptions to this principle, especially in the domain of verbs that have to do with speaking or delivering messages (said, announced, etc.)
for instance, he said he was coming and he said that he was coming are both considered legitimate. also, here's another official problem with the same sort of omission:
at-one-time-the-majestic-american-chestnut-was-so-prevalent-t2587.html

notice that this one contains "said", which is also about delivering some sort of message.

[tanyatomar]

hi,
i chose B for this one..
hi,
want to know why cant we use present continuous tense here "is closing"
also in c they say:
"it was closing up to one fourth of its stores because of poor sales"..
poor sales of what - those stores or company as a whole because of those stores..

in B: it says: it is closing up to one-­"fourth of its stores, which accounted for its poor sales..
this makes it more clear that they are closing those store which accounted for poor sales..
or is B also wrong because of the "it" ??
PLease clarify this doubt..

Thanks....

[RonPurewal]

want to know why cant we use present continuous tense here "is closing"

1/
the sentence describes an announcement made in the past -- about something that was going on at that time in the past -- so a present construction wouldn't make sense here.

2/
if you're going to use is closing, which cements the sentence's point of view in the present, then you should say have accounted (which is also seen from the present point of view), rather than accounted (past POV).

the OA makes sense if the company was in the midst of closing the stores (or had just begun to close them) at the time of the announcement.
if the company had not yet begun to close the stores, then you would use "would": the company announced that it would close / would be closing 1/4 of its stores...

also in c they say:
"it was closing up to one fourth of its stores because of poor sales"..
poor sales of what - those stores or company as a whole because of those stores..

i'm not seeing the difference between these two interpretations -- your second interpretation just seems like a slightly more extreme version of your first.
i.e., if those stores did so poorly that the entire company's sales numbers were adversely affected, then, well, those stores did poorly.

or is B also wrong because of the "it" ??

the same "it" is also in the correct answer, so you know what that means.

[tanyatomar]

want to know why cant we use present continuous tense here "is closing"

1/
the sentence describes an announcement made in the past -- about something that was going on at that time in the past -- so a present construction wouldn't make sense here.

2/
if you're going to use is closing, which cements the sentence's point of view in the present, then you should say have accounted (which is also seen from the present point of view), rather than accounted (past POV).

the OA makes sense if the company was in the midst of closing the stores (or had just begun to close them) at the time of the announcement.
if the company had not yet begun to close the stores, then you would use "would": the company announced that it would close / would be closing 1/4 of its stores...

also in c they say:
"it was closing up to one fourth of its stores because of poor sales"..
poor sales of what - those stores or company as a whole because of those stores..

i'm not seeing the difference between these two interpretations -- your second interpretation just seems like a slightly more extreme version of your first.
i.e., if those stores did so poorly that the entire company's sales numbers were adversely affected, then, well, those stores did poorly.

or is B also wrong because of the "it" ??

the same "it" is also in the correct answer, so you know what that means.

Hi Ron,
is it correct to use this: the company announced that it is going to close the stores.... that accounted for poor sales....

hmmm, but after reading ur explaination again i think here also we should use "have accounted".. hmmmm.. because "accounted" means that it was responsible fpr poor sales in past but may be not now.. "have accounted" => its has been responsible for poor sales since some time..

ok i think i am getting the difference now... am really poor at tenses...

thanks a lot for your answer Ron...