290. Faced with an estimated $2 billion budget gap, the citys mayor proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the citys major cultural institutions and to subsidize hundreds of local arts groups.
(A) proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the citys major cultural institutions and to subsidize
(B) proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent in the amount it was allocating to maintain the citys major cultural institutions and for subsidizing
(C) proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated for the maintenance of the citys major cultural institutions and to subsidize
(D) has proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent of the amount it was allocating for maintaining the citys major cultural institutions, and to subsidize
(E) was proposing that the amount they were allocating be reduced by nearly 17 percent from the previous year for maintaining the citys major cultural institutions and for the subsidization
Solution:
Parallelism
OG Solution
A is the best choice. The construction the amount allocated... to maintain... and to subsidize is parallel, while the phrase a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year is both clear and concise. In B, the phrase allocating to maintain... and for subsidizing is not parallel. The construction a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent in the amount is awkward, imprecise, and excessively wordy. Furthermore, there is no grammatical referent for it in the phrase it was allocating. In C, the phrase proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated is unidiomatic and overly wordy. Choice C also violates parallelism with allocated for the maintenance of...and to subsidize. In D, there is no grammatical referent for it in the phrase it was allocating: the mayor, not the city, is the subject of the clause. Choice D also violates parallelism with allocating for maintaining ... and to subsidize. In E, the progressive was proposing is unnecessary, and there is no grammatical referent for they in the phrase they were allocating. Furthermore, for maintaining... and for the subsidization is not parallel.
Sentence Correction - 1000 Questions with Solution:
(A) proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the citys major cultural institutions and to subsidize
(B) proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent in the amount it was allocating to maintain the citys major cultural institutions and for subsidizing
(C) proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated for the maintenance of the citys major cultural institutions and to subsidize
(D) has proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent of the amount it was allocating for maintaining the citys major cultural institutions, and to subsidize
(E) was proposing that the amount they were allocating be reduced by nearly 17 percent from the previous year for maintaining the citys major cultural institutions and for the subsidization
Solution:
Parallelism
OG Solution
A is the best choice. The construction the amount allocated... to maintain... and to subsidize is parallel, while the phrase a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year is both clear and concise. In B, the phrase allocating to maintain... and for subsidizing is not parallel. The construction a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent in the amount is awkward, imprecise, and excessively wordy. Furthermore, there is no grammatical referent for it in the phrase it was allocating. In C, the phrase proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated is unidiomatic and overly wordy. Choice C also violates parallelism with allocated for the maintenance of...and to subsidize. In D, there is no grammatical referent for it in the phrase it was allocating: the mayor, not the city, is the subject of the clause. Choice D also violates parallelism with allocating for maintaining ... and to subsidize. In E, the progressive was proposing is unnecessary, and there is no grammatical referent for they in the phrase they were allocating. Furthermore, for maintaining... and for the subsidization is not parallel.
Sentence Correction - 1000 Questions with Solution: