From a passage

Question

Hi,The underlined part in the passage below....1. "making it extremely difficult"...   What is the agent or the doer of "making"?  Who or what makes it extremely difficult?Is the agent "we"? or the whole sentence "we ignore the vastness of the system as a whole" should be considered as an agent?2. "their benefit".....  Whom does "their" refer to?  Does it refer to "the combinations"? *** *** ***Some researchers argue that food science is necessarily reductive because the entire food system is so complex that all they can do is break the system down into isolated parts and study them. The problem is that when nutrients are studied in isolation, we ignore the vastness of the system as a whole, making it extremely difficult to know what any given nutrient’s effect really is within the system. For example, the combinations in which we consume foods and drinks can have tremendous influence on their benefit or harm. We can hardly absorb the iron in a steak if we drink a cup of coffee with it. That simple addition of a particular liquid into the steak meal yields a different nutritional result. In other words, if we want healthy meals, we have to understand the entire process of eating - with all of the factors that affect a healthy outcome.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,
The underlined part in the passage below....

1. "making it extremely difficult"... What is the agent or the doer of "making"? Who or what makes it extremely difficult?
Is the agent "we"? or the whole sentence "we ignore the vastness of the system as a whole" should be considered as an agent? It's an adverbial phrase that modifies "we ignore the vastness of the system as a whole"

2. "their benefit"..... Whom does "their" refer to? Does it refer to "the combinations"? To me, it makes more sense to have it refer to 'foods and drinks'.

This is also the strictly grammar-based meaning. (ie Ask yourself what the last plural nouns mentioned were.)

Clive

Pructus · Answer

I see....

Thanks a lot, Clive!!

About Question #1: I've learned that when the subject is not identical, then we need to expressly put in the new subject. For example: He being nice, I was pleased.---->> In this case, "he" and "I" are different, so that we have to put in "he". Therefore, "Being nice, I was pleased" is ungrammatical.

So, in the example I quoted, the subject definitely seems to be dfferent. But the different subject is not expressly noted. Then, maybe it's so called, 'dangling participle' construction. After your explanation, I guess, at least in this kind of construction, the so called 'dangling participle' construction. is being widely used.

Question #2: The last plural nouns mentioned didn't seem to make sense to me. None of the nouns seem to make sense.

The benefit or harm of the "foods and drinks"? "Foods and drinks " can have their own benefits or harms? I am a little puzzled, here. Does it mean "their benefit or harm (on us)"?

Clive · Answer

Hi,
About Question #1: I've learned that when the subject is not identical, then we need to expressly put in the new subject. For example: He being nice, I was pleased.---->> In this case, "he" and "I" are different, so that we have to put in "he". Therefore, "Being nice, I was pleased" is ungrammatical. Here, it is assumed that the subject is 'I'. The phrase is correctly positioned close to the word 'I'. It's not a dangling participle.
A dangling participle is
eg Burning furiously, I saw a house.
eg Looking out of the window, there is a large tree.

So, in the example I quoted, the subject definitely seems to be different. But the different subject is not expressly noted. Then, maybe it's so called, 'dangling participle' construction. After your explanation, I guess, at least in this kind of construction, the so called 'dangling participle' construction. is being widely used.

Question #2: The last plural nouns mentioned didn't seem to make sense to me. None of the nouns seem to make sense.

The benefit or harm of the "foods and drinks"? "Foods and drinks " can have their own benefits or harms? I am a little puzzled, here. Does it mean "their benefit or harm (on us)"? Yes, definitely.

Very broadly speaking, many things we say include implicit meanings. If they didn't, our sentences would often be long and fussy, and would sound rather ridiculous. We simply expect the listener to make the obvious connection.
eg Twisting a lion's tale is dangerous Here, 'to the person who twists it' is simply assumed.

Clive

Pructus · Answer

I see... I see...

Thanks, Clive!!

From a passage

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions