Relative Pronoun Error; Help!

[Vaibhav Sinha]

I would need some explanations for this one?

[Vaibhav Sinha]

Here is another one.

[Vaibhav Sinha]

Identify the subject and object here. Please explain.

[swati.pdh]

Subject - the person/thing performing the action
indirect Object - The person/thing on which the action is performed.indirect object ans the qns 'to whom', 'for whom'

here the  subject is - WSJ and the  Indirect Object is brokers(consider it as 'The WSJ is.............text for whom brokers may see .....quo

[swati.pdh]

is A the answer?

If yes, then i will post my reasoning :)

[Matt P]

Sorry for the ridiculous reposting of responses; for some reason I'm not being permitted to edit the posts and Google is going nuts on me.

I hope your inboxes were not too spammed...

Anyways, all of these questions are very poor.

The telescope question is just... very wrong. It's missing an article in each option, in front of "Hobby-Eberly", and again in front of "relatively", unless radius became radii.. but then the sentence wouldn't really make sense. So all of the options are grammatically incorrect.

The WSJ sentence needs to eliminate the comma after 'text', and needs to add a very before "the status quo." "Going independent" cannot be compared to "the status quo"; it's a verb vs a noun." That said, assuming those two problems were fixed, the answer is, as Swati said, "for whom", since whom is for objects and who is for subjects. In any prepositional phrase (of X / for X / etc...), X is an object of the preposition and can never take on a subject word.

Lastly, the University of Lisbon question again omits a necessary article in front of "brain's". Next, the way that the sentence is constructed, it looks as though the "is related to" modifies the false statements, and should thus be changed to "are related to." But that makes absolutely no sense, obviously, so all of them are just, very poor sentences.

I know you've probably been going through many materials and are trying to find some new question sources, but whichever one is spewing out these questions is not a good one. I think you should probably walk away from this source before their grammar starts to permeate your brain.

:) Good luck