The analyses of a text

Question

Cook vs PearyCurrently, some scholars argue that both both men may have lied about their achievement, each coming within one hundred miles of his destination but never quite reaching it. Robert Bryce, the author of Cook and Peary: The Polar Controversy, points out that it wasn't until 1995 that any human being again reached the North Pole the way Cook and Prey claimed to have done it. Yet according to Bryce, given the improved equipment and more advanced knowledge available, it should been possible to replicate the two man's achievement  much sooner had they really accomplished what they claimed.[Source: Reading for Results Ninth Edition by Laraine Flemming]I think in view of the context, the underlined clause and blue colored clause are both objects of "argue."If so, I'd like to know how the participle phrase can become an object.And, I'd like to know if "in" is implied before "the way."

Xillius · Accepted Answer

I break it into these pieces

argue that both both men may have lied about their achievement, each coming within one hundred miles of his destination but never quite reaching it.

The first "both" includes the two following ideas into "argue."

GPY · Answer

XilliusI break it into these piecesargue that both both men may have lied about their achievement, each coming within one hundred miles of his destination but never quite reaching it.The first "both" includes the two following ideas into "argue."

I don't see that this explanation is possible. It looks to me as if "both both" is just a typo for "both".

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joonthe underlined clause and blue colored clause are both objects of "argue."

That's a very unusual analysis.

Everything after "argue" is the content clause that serves as the object of "argue". (There should be only one "both", by the way.)

The participle clause that begins with "each" is supplementary information that is related to the idea of "may have lied". If you wanted to change the participle clause into a finite clause you would connect with "in that", which is approximately like "and the evidence for this is that", thus:

... argue that both men may have lied about their achievement [and the evidence for this is that / in that] each came within one hundred miles of his destination but never quite reached it.

The connection is not simply "and": They may have lied and each came close to his destination but never reached it. Therefore, we can't say that there are two objects here.

CJ

The analyses of a text

Cook vs Peary

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions