World War II taught the United States the folly of punishing a vanquished aggressor; so after the war, they enacted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany.

*This question is included in Nova Grammar I, question #4

The solution is

Posted: 01/02/2012 18:51
As the answer being d wouldn't it sound repetitive saying the united states? Doesn't it imply the united states as "they"
Image Not Available
Posted: 01/03/2012 00:15
Hi Skai,

Since 'United States' is denoting the collective country, it is singular and therefore cannot be correctly referred to by the plural pronoun 'they.'

Intuitively, we also do not refer to a country as 'they.' Or if we do, it's too informal for the SAT.

The Test Prep Guru
Posted: 10/27/2012 08:55
So everything is going to be formal, not informal, on the SAT?
Image Not Available
Posted: 10/27/2012 15:24
Posted: 01/02/2013 03:07
I didn't understand why the answer E is incorrect .. Can somebody explain ? Thank you ....
Image Not Available
Posted: 01/02/2013 04:42
Hi Hadi,

Choice (E) does not violate the rules of grammar (though some strict grammarians do object to its use in this context). It is the second-best answer choice. The phrase “in order” is unnecessary. In this context, the phase "in order to" has the same meaning as just the word "to." Choice (D) is the same as Choice (E), except for the redundant words "in order," so it is a better answer.

Nova Press
Posted: 01/02/2013 03:12
Why we can't use "was enacted " ?
Image Not Available
Posted: 01/03/2013 20:54
Hi Hadi,

In answer-choice (B), the use of the passive “was enacted” makes the sentence vague since it does not indicate who enacted the Marshall Plan. Perhaps, it was the collective nations of Europe, not the United States, that enacted the Marshall plan.

In answer-choice (C), the use of the passive “was enacted” does not make the sentence vague since it is stated that the United States enacted the plan. However, Choice (C) reverses the natural order of a sentence:

Subject -> Verb -> Object

Sometimes the natural order of the subject and object in a sentence are reversed for rhetorical reasons or to emphasize the object, but there does not appear to be any advantage in doing that with this sentence. Further, all the extra words that the passive structure adds to the sentence ("was enacted by" vs. "enacted") give a loose or sloppy feel to the sentence.

Nova Press

You need to be signed in to perform that action.

Sign In