0

folks! So, I was training for a test, but I just can't figure out two questions. In them, I have to identify one excerpt with a grammar mistake. I have the test final results, so I know which sentences are wrong, but I don't know why. Could you please help me? I'm taking this test on June 8 :/

1 - Where is the mistake in the sentence

Yet in the years since the late 1980s, gyrating oil prices – with the exception of a brief spike during the Gulf War – have become a thing of the past.

2 – What about this one?

The tower, built in Tokyo's eastern ward of Sumida, will replace the existing Tokyo Tower in 2012.

Thank you so much!!

Improve this question
11
  • 2
    These are both complicated sentences, and there are plenty of problems with them, but not any grammatical ones. So we'd need to know what kind of beliefs your teacher has been filling you with, about what's grammatically correct and incorrect in English, and why. There is a lot of nonsense out there.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 18:02
  • 1
    Well, for (2), you can't use will replace for something that happened seven years ago. But maybe it's an old exercise.
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 18:05
  • 1
    Sorry, but we can't: We don't do proofreading unless a source of concern is identified in the text, so we can specifically address the principles regarding that.
    – Tonepoet
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 18:40
  • 1
    @Tonepoet but the OP doesn't know where the error is. They only know that the sentences are supposedly wrong. It is not asking whether the examples are grammatically correct or if we can correct it for them. The question is asking "where?".
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 18:48
  • 1
    @Mari-Lou A There is no ungrammaticality in the second example. This is proofreading. And the equivalent of homework. Which is why I've answered in a 'comment'. And close-voted.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 18:55

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
  1. Yet, in the years since the late 1980s – with the exception of a brief spike during the Gulf War – gyrating oil prices have become a thing of the past.

The parenthetical is there to add extra information about the time and not about the prices and so it should be moved closer to what it describes.

  1. The tower – built in Tokyo's eastern ward of Sumida – will replace the existing Tokyo Tower in 2012.

Apart from the illogicality of something that has already come into existence replacing something else only in the future, I would say that since the location of the tower is not the most important point of the sentence, em dashes are the stronger parenthetical mark and will serve to set this extraneous piece of information apart better.

Improve this answer
2
  • Much better +1...
    – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 20:36
  • 2
    Something can be already built and scheduled to replace another thing in the future. For example the tower may be built, but will only take over roles currently performed by the Tokyo Tower at a later date. In any case that's a semantic not a grammatical error.
    – DJClayworth
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 20:48
0

Both the sentences have the same grammar mistakes: the actions denoted by the verbs have been completed at a certain point of time in the past. So, the verbs should be in the simple past tense form. The sentences can be corrected as:

  1. Yet in the years since the late 1980s, gyrating oil prices – with the exception of a brief spike during the Gulf War – became a thing of the past.

  2. The tower, built in Tokyo's eastern ward of Sumida, replaced the existing Tokyo Tower in 2012.

Improve this answer
5
  • "…have become a thing of the past" refers to the (past) 1980s up until the present day, it is ongoing. The Present Perfect is acceptable in this instance. But you may well be right where #2 is concerned.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 19:00
  • @Mari-LouA Then, the OP's first sentence is without any error in it, isn't it? Or, perhaps is the error in the subject NP? the gyrating/gyration of oil prices has become?
    – mahmud k pukayoor
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 19:22
  • But "oil prices" is plural, the auxiliary verb "have" is appropriate and correct.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 19:32
  • @Mari-LouA if the subject is "gyrating or gyration of oil prices", the head noun is singular (gyrating/gyration).
    – mahmud k pukayoor
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 19:45
  • What pronoun would you use to replace "gyrating oil prices" (please keep to the original wording) it or they?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jun 2, 2019 at 19:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.