I think you can use both. By the way, don't you have use "is" instead of "are"? or is it correct grammatically with "are"? I think it's different from "I were/was".
I'm afraid it would be a prescriptive rule but I was taught in school as follows:
Choose "that" rather than "which" in the case the antecedent is modified by "all", "every", "any", "no", "the only", "the same", "the very" or any adjective in superlative form (the ....est or the most .....).
What I've been told is that "that" is the form preferred by purists to introduce restrictive relative clauses (which is the case here). Not that "which" is wrong but some examiners could make a point of it.
What I've been told is that "that" is the form preferred by purists to introduce restrictive relative clauses (which is the case here). Not that "which" is wrong but some examiners could make a point of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Miche,
ESL students should not have to put up with examiners or teachers who pr
Let's not get all philosophical here. Go to those grammar books where this 'rule' is espoused and seek out the proof therein. I think you probably already have and its sparsity has led you on this tack.
CJ: But what would any proof be like? Quotations from grammar books, from journal articles, from forums like this one? Statistic