You'd have to give up certain aspects of the statement, but they're probably present in prior context anyway. to firms that require it. to firms that have been shut out.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
MusicgoldI feel the underlined part is too complicated.I don't agree. I would leave it as is.
CalifJim I don't agree. I would leave it as is.
Musicgold firms that otherwise not have had access.... . . firms that otherwise have not had access. . .
MusicgoldHow about this?No. That's worse. The not is in the wrong place (See Avangi's correction), and the meaning changes from "maybe" to "definitely".
firms that otherwise not have had access...