The Tense Problem Hi there :) I found this sentence and feel something awkward. "Combining enormous physical strength with higher intelligence, the Neanderthals appear to have been equipped to face any obstacle the environment could put in their path, but their relatively sudden disappearance during the Paleolithic era indicates that an inability to adapt to some environmental change led to their extinction." This sentence says "the Neanderthals appear to have been equipped", but obviously the Neanderthals were born in the past. So I thought it was supposed to be "the Neanderthals appeared to be equipped". Is there any reason why the tense should be the past tense for "Appear" in the sentence?? If so, what is the difference between "appear" and "appeared" in this sentence in terms of meaning. I appreciate any kind of your answers!! Thank you for your help!!

The Usage of inverted Structure Hi there :) I have a question from entrance examination. Here is the sentence. "Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it." According to the answer key, this is wrong because this sentence has inverted structure. And having the structure changes the intended meaning of the sentence. The correct answer is the following. "Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure." My question is what is the difference between those sentences in terms of meaning. Does the inverted structure really changes the meaning?? If so, please explain the detail of the difference. I appreciate any kind of your helps!!

The Usage of "Due to" Hi there!! I have a question about the usage of "Due to". What is the deference between "Due to" and "Because of". I know these are not interchangeable, but I'm not sure the difference. EX) 1) The class was cancelled because of the heavy snow. 2) The cancellation of the class was due to the heavy snow I appreciate any kinds of your helps. Thank you :)

Past Perfect Tense Hi there!! I found this sentence and thought the tense is not correct. "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump." I thought "were allowed" is not correct since the dumping was allowed before the agreement. So I think "had been allowed" is better since past perfect tense in this sentence indicates that dumping was allowed before the agreement. At least "are allowed" is supposed to be "were allowed" to indicate that dumping happened in the past. Would you tell me which one seems more natural?? Is it okay to write "are allowed" in this sentence?? If so, please explain the reasons. I appreciate any kinds of your helps. Thank you so much :)

The Rules of Relative Adverb I'm currently studying English for grammar test. And I have a question about relative adverb. "His studies of ice-polished rocks in his Alpine home land, far outside the range of present-day glaciers, led Louis Agassiz in 1837 to propose the concept of an age [when/in which] great ice sheets existed in what are now temperate areas." I thought the relative adverb "when/in which" modifies "the concept", so it should be "in which" since I thought "when" modifies only the word "time". But the book says that either "when" or "in which" is fine since this relative adverb modifies the word "an age". Is it true that the relative adverb modifies "the age"?? If so, can the relative adverb "when" modify words other than the word "time"?? I appreciate any kinds of your helps!! Thank you so much as always :)

Adjective I found this sentence and I think something is wrong. "Laos has a land area comparable to that of Great Britain but a population of only four million people, many of whom are members of hill tribes ensconced in the virtually inaccessible mountain valleys of the north." I found "a land area comparable to" is awkward, because "a land area" is noun and "comparable" is adjective. I think it should be "a land area which is comparable to". Is there minor grammatical rule going on here?? Is something hidden between "a land area" and "comparable"?? I appreciate any kinds of your answers. Thank you :)

The Function of Semi-Colon I found this sentence and thought this is awkward. "Tropical bats play important roles in the rain forest ecosystem, aiding in the dispersal of cashew, date, and fig seeds; pollinating banana, breadfruit, and mango trees; and indirectly helping to produce tequila by pollinating agave plants." I thought that the function of Semi-Colon is to divide the two sentences. But it is followed by nouns (pollinating banana, breadfruit, and mango trees). Is my understanding of Semi-Colon wrong?? If so, what is the function of the punctuation?? I appreciate any kinds of your helps. Thank you :)

The Usage of "Before" I found this sentence "Josephine Baker made Paris her home long before to be an expatriate was fashionable, and she remained in France during the Second World War as a performer and an intelligence agent for the Resistance." Some book says that the phrase "long before to be an expatriate was fashionable" is awkward for some reason. I would like to make sure why the phrase sentence is awkward. I personally think that this is awkward because the word "before" should be followed by Subject+Verb. Is my understanding is correct?? Is "long before" not a common phrase?? Is there other reasons why this is awkward?? I appreciate any kinds of your help. Thank you very much :)

Conditional Phrase Question I found the following sentence and don't know why this sentence needs "would". "To develop more accurate population forecasts, demographers would have to know a great deal more than they do now about the social and economic determinants of fertility." I thought that the sentence does not need "would", since this does not sound hypothetical. And my understanding of the usage of "would" is that "would" is used when you describe something about hypothetical. I appreciate any helps you offer. Thank you very much :)