This caution is understandable, particularly ……………….. five years.

[sb70012]

This caution is understandable, particularly ……………….. five years.

A. inflation raising over the country in the last
B. inflation rise in the country in the past
C. with inflation in the country rising over the past (Answer)
D. with inflation raise over the country in the last

Source: university exam

Hi,
Oh my goodness. I have never seen such a tricky question. All the options look perfect to me.
What's wrong with A, B and D?

Thank you.

 

[VicNicSor]

It would be helpful if you said why you consider all the other options correct (even perfect) first.

 

[sb70012]

I am not a native English speaker to prove that they are correct. I don't say they are correct. I say they just look correct to me. I know that they are wrong but I don't know why I can't see what's their problem.
I want to know what's wrong with A, B and D.

 

[grassy]

In A. and D. there is one word used incorrectly. Can you see which one it is?
In A. and B. there is no word which could logically connect the two parts in those sentences. Do you know which word it is?
In B. and D. the form of the verb is incorrect. Can you see that?

 

[sb70012]

I see now what's wrong with A. "raise" is a transitive verb. So A is wrong.

But B and D look fine.

B. This caution is understandable, particularly inflation rise in the country in the past five years.
I see nothing wrong with "inflation rise". "rise" is used as a noun here. The blue part here means "inflation increase".
So, what's wrong with B? I can't find it.

D. This caution is understandable, particularly with inflation raise over the country in the last five years.
I see nothing wrong with "with inflation raise". "raise" is used as a noun here. The blue part here means "with inflation increase".

So, what's wrong with D? I can't find it.

 

[grassy]

B. Nouns are preceded by articles. The sentence also has one more problem which I mentioned above.
D. Same here. And 'raise' as noun has a different meaning which doesn't fit there whatsoever.

 

[sb70012]

D. Same here. And 'raise' as noun has a different meaning which doesn't fit there whatsoever.

Raise. n

1. the act or an instance of raising
2. chiefly US Canadian an increase, esp in salary, wages, etc; rise

raise - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

It can be used as a noun in option D according to definition #1.

I wonder why you don't accept "raise" as a noun in option D.

 

[Glasguensis]

The only structure which works here is "with inflation + present participle". That rules out A, B and D. In addition, the correct verb here is "rise", not "raise". Inflation can be the subject of to rise but can only be the object of the verb to raise. That rules out A and D for a second reason.

 

[sb70012]

Thanks for answering but I couldn't understand your explanations very well.

B. This caution is understandable, particularly inflation rise in the country in the past five years.
My analysis for B => [This warning is understandable, especially inflation increase (is also understandable) that has happened in the past five years.] inflation rise - inflation increase
We can use "rise" as a noun.

D. This caution is understandable, particularly with inflation raise over the country in the last five years.
My analysis for D => [This warning is understandable, especially with inflation increase (the warning is also understandable) that has happened in the past five years.] inflation raise - inflation increase
We can use "raise" as a noun.


Poor me. I don't know why I can't understand why B and D are wrong.
I wish one other native English speaker would explain this more simply so that I can understand it better.

Thank you.

 

[Hermione Golightly]

A. inflation raising over the country in the last ...
B. inflation rise in the country in the past...
C. with inflation in the country rising over the past ... (Answer)
D. with inflation raise over the country in the last ...

A and B are wrong because 'particularly' needs to be followed by another word. It's only a modifier/enhancer/adverb not a conjunction. In addition, A has the transitive verb 'raise' used instead of 'rise'.
Possibile conjunctions are 'as'/'because' or 'since', but they demand a finite clause, with a verb tense like 'has risen'.
'... since inflation has risen over the past five years.'

D is wrong because 'with' is a preposition and so requires a noun or noun form after it, in this case 'rising', the present participle used as a noun, sometimes called a gerund. D also wrongly uses an infinitive and it's the wrong verb, it should be intransitive 'rise' not 'raise'.

C is correct either because it uses the noun subject 'inflation' after the preposition 'with' and then uses the participle as an adjective after the noun, or because it uses the participle form as main verb and 'inflation' the subject. There's a term for this sort of construction but I always forget what it is.

Then they seem to torment you with a possible difference between 'last' and 'past'. I can't see any difference myself in this sentence.

 

[sb70012]

In option B "inflation rise" as a noun means "inflation increase". Then, why don't you accept B as correct?

Thank you.

 

[Myridon]

In option B "inflation rise" as a noun means "inflation increase". Then, why don't you accept B as correct?

With a noun after "particularly," you get a sentence like:
Fruit is sweet, particularly apples. Apples are a kind of fruit. Even if we accept "inflation rise" as a noun phrase, the sentence is bad.

 

[Glasguensis]

B is wrong because if rise is a noun, you can't put it directly after particularly - you would need a conjunction as well, as has been stated.
Particularly with the inflation rise
Particularly because of the inflation rise.
D is wrong because just as we can't substitute raise for rise as a verb here we can't substitute it as a noun either, for the same reason. We talk about inflation rises, not raises.
In addition, if you use a noun you need an article here (the), so both B and D would be incorrect even if your reasoning was correct.