A possibly erroneous use of “” in a complex sentence.
Isn’t this an erroneous use of or??
But despite the existence of a vaccine against HGT from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there is still concern about HGT in human tissues. However, there is still some doubt that it may not be harmful for human health. What are the basics of this study? The HGT of an introduced gene in a GMO might confer a novel trait in another organism, which could be a source of potential harm to people or the environment. For example, the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to a pathogen has the potential to compromise a human or animal therapy (Bennett et al., 2004). , 2004), transfer of a viral gene to a non-homologous virus may result in an emerging disease (Falk and Bruening, 1994) or gene transfer to humans has been controversially proposed as a potential trigger for oncogenesis (Ho et al., 2010). If this fails then is possible. , 1998).
(From ” Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer “, by Paul Keese)
P.S. It’s hard to formulate why exactly, but it continues to look erroneous to me, although of course I believe J.R. In Russian, such a sentence would be considered erroneous to me. Is it an able to repair a cross out “stoking” “and ” in its place? And a comma before ” and “, of course.
Is that erroneous? I have 2 months. C’mon, it’s essentially a list of three examples, set up by the preceding sentence or paragraph, which you initial omitted but then wisely included after your edit.
How can I improve my written English
from an open language? Which answer can give valuable insights and clarification?
The flow of your excerpt is a little harder to follow, though, because it’s very technical material. Other than a short excerpt, my grammar is already very well implemented. The parenthetical references don’t help, either, as they interrupt the flow of the sentence. Why is the or quite appropriate?
There is a violation of parallelism in the verbal structure which goes from active to passive voice (has the potential… may result… has been proposed as ). Nothing to do with “or”, however; the “or” may actually be an attempt to compensate for, or announce, a shift in voice.
If I don’t get gene
transfer by genetics I know that may trigger oncogenesis. Why?
How can a person save a significant amount of time and money?
This use of or rather than and is quite common and quite proper. Where does this author in the New York Times stand? If he doesn’t want to give the impression that the dangers he lists are probable events with a cumulative effect that
this may happen and that may happen, and the other may happen, too!
No one can really solve different dangers, even the greatest of them, and all of them are possible. But yet, if we
consider all these dangers as possibilities, each is independent of the other. Some of them, which one can come to pass, this would happen, or that might happen, or the other would happen, but all would be impossible.
Another alternative to rhetoric, and in this context, or puts forward a very different rhetorical strategy. Each of the dangers has a small chance of occurring—let’s say, for the sake of argument, 2%. The probability that all three will happen (A and B and C) is vanishingly small: 2-2% 2-2% 2* =… 00998%. Is the chance that at least one will happen is growing increasingly large? Not only is 2% + 2% + 2% = 6%.
Given that the value of both or and is preceded by a comma, r you are going to prove it. In
logical sense you are correct.
