A confusing SC Q from prep，please help！

[aimhier]

Hi experts，
here is a Q from prep：
It is the powerful compound capsaicin that makes a chili pepper hot; a single drop that has no taste and
odor is capable of detection by humans at one part per million.
A. a single drop that has no taste and odor is capable of detection
B. a single drop is detectable, though without taste and odor,
C. a single tasteless and odorless drop can be detected
D. single tasteless and odorless drops are capable of detection
E. single drops that have no taste or odor can be detectable

the oa is：C; my questions are:1, why is B wrong 2, is the structure"adj+by" wrong?

thanks

[milkfly_ybw]

"Be detectable" refers to a characterism of chili pepper. A characterism can not "be detectable" by human. The sentence originally emphasizes that the action of "people can detect".

"Without taste and odor" also sounds awkard because this means the drop does not have two things "taste and odor". But "tasteless and odorless" means the drop can not be taste or odor.

[RonPurewal]

the oa is：C; my questions are:1, why is B wrong

* "detectable" doesn't mix idiomatically with "by"

* the modifier "without taste..." is misplaced; that modifier is intended to describe "drop", but it is instead mistakenly tagged onto "detectable"

* it's nonsense to use a negative (such as not, without, few, etc.) with "x AND y", because we don't have any idea what that means.
e.g.,
i have no work and no money. --> clear meaning: i have neither of these things.
if i have no work or no money, my uncle can help me. --> clear meaning: if i have either #1 or #2, he can help.
i have no work or money. --> clear meaning: same as the first sentence.
BUT
i have no work and money. --> what does this mean? we don't know. it's basically a nonsense statement.

same problem with "without taste AND odor"; that's basically a meaningless phrase. there's no way to tell what it is supposed to indicate.

2, is the structure"adj+by" wrong?

this is something you'd have to consider on a case-by-case basis. but in the case of "detectable", yeah, that's not idiomatically correct.

[calm.jing]

* the modifier "without taste..." is misplaced; that modifier is intended to describe "drop", but it is instead mistakenly tagged onto "detectable"

So is it true that without/with modifies whatever comes ahead of it? That is, "without/with" can modify a noun, an adjective, or even a verb?
And if the "with" phrase is placed at the end of the sentence, does it modify the entire preceding clause or just the nearest word?

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

"With(out)" is just a preposition (like "in", "on", etc.) It's not particularly special.

These things can describe nouns:

I read the book on the table.
--> There's a book on the table; I read it. Obviously, I didn't read a random book while sitting on the table.

I generally cook chicken without skin.
--> I take the skin off the chicken when cooking. Obviously, I don't take off my own skin!
If I were a snake, this sentence might mean "I only cook chicken after molting", but I'm not a snake. So the sentence is unambiguous. (:

They can also describe actions:

I read the book on the subway.
--> While riding the subway, I read a book. (The alternative interpretation -- "There's a book that randomly stays on the subway, and I read it" -- isn't reasonable.)

I generally cook chicken without a flame.
--> I cook the chicken in some other way, e.g., sous vide, or in a microwave oven, or whatever. (A "flame" is not part of a chicken, so this sentence doesn't work like the other one.)

You get the point.
As you can see from these pairs of examples -- which are structured identically, but have different functionality -- you may have to employ a bit of common sense to determine how these prepositions are used.
That shouldn't be news, though, since most SC principles require a little common sense.

[calm.jing]

Thank you very much, Ron! That's helpful! :)

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[manhhiep2509]

Hi Ron.

Is "capable of detection" in choice A and D wrong because "capable" indicates ability, not possibility as "can" in correct choice does?

---

"With(out)" is just a preposition (like "in", "on", etc.) It's not particularly special.

These things can describe nouns:

I read the book on the table.
--> There's a book on the table; I read it. Obviously, I didn't read a random book while sitting on the table.

I generally cook chicken without skin.
--> I take the skin off the chicken when cooking. Obviously, I don't take off my own skin!
If I were a snake, this sentence might mean "I only cook chicken after molting", but I'm not a snake. So the sentence is unambiguous. (:

They can also describe actions:

I read the book on the subway.
--> While riding the subway, I read a book. (The alternative interpretation -- "There's a book that randomly stays on the subway, and I read it" -- isn't reasonable.)

I generally cook chicken without a flame.
--> I cook the chicken in some other way, e.g., sous vide, or in a microwave oven, or whatever. (A "flame" is not part of a chicken, so this sentence doesn't work like the other one.)

You get the point.
As you can see from these pairs of examples -- which are structured identically, but have different functionality -- you may have to employ a bit of common sense to determine how these prepositions are used.
That shouldn't be news, though, since most SC principles require a little common sense.

So, do you mean "without taste and odor" can modify the adjective "detectable"? You just mention "action" and "noun" as two things "without" could modify, so I am not sure.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

"Is detectable" is an action.

[manhhiep2509]

"Is detectable" is an action.

according to your explanation, preposition or at least "without" could modify "action", and "action" could be conveyed not only by a verb but also by an adjective such as detectable.

Is my understanding correct?

Or you mean that "is" is a verb, "without ..." modifies "is"?
---------

Is "capable of detection" in choice A and D wrong because "capable" indicates ability, not possibility as "can" in correct choice does?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

"Is detectable" is an action.

according to your explanation, preposition or at least "without" could modify "action", and "action" could be conveyed not only by a verb but also by an adjective such as detectable.

Is my understanding correct?

Or you mean that "is" is a verb, "without ..." modifies "is"?

The latter.
I tried to make this point clear by putting "is" in bold-face, but, as "is" is only two letters long, I suppose that could be easy to miss.

On the other hand, it is possible for these kinds of modifiers to describe adjectives and/or noun forms derived from actions.
E.g., you can have bills payable by credit card, in which "by credit card" describes "payable".
In the sentence Walking slowly along the beach is relaxing, the adverb "slowly" describes walking, which is a noun, but which carries the meaning of an action.
These modifiers can also be used to modify other modifiers that contain actions. E.g., Customers paying bills by credit card should wait 3-5 days for the charges to appear on their accounts: "By credit card" decribes "paying bills", which in turn is a modifier describing "customers".

So, in the end, you could interpret that modifier as describing either "is detectable" or just "detectable". It doesn't really matter, since there's no difference in meaning between the two.

[RonPurewal]

Is "capable of detection" in choice A and D wrong because "capable" indicates ability, not possibility as "can" in correct choice does?

Thank you.

As a writer, I wouldn't use "capable" unless I were describing the potential abilities or results of the thing that's modified by "capable".
Ordinarily, that's going to be a person or animal, since people and animals are normally the agents of most actions. It is possible, though, to speak of the "capabilities" of an inanimate object, e.g., A single atomic bomb is capable of destroying an entire metropolitan area.

In the choices you're citing here, the principal issue with "capable" is that we're not describing a "capability" of the drops themselves; rather, we're describing a capability of humans. (Humans are capable of detecting xxxx.)

[750plus]

Ron,

I have read the two posters that are above my poster regarding the usage of 'is detectable'. But I'm unable to understand exactly what you are trying to convey there.

My question is:
I could not locate any error in choice A. I was down to options A and C.

I picked C because it is sleek and moreover, contains the verb 'detected' as opposed to 'detection' in choice A.

I don't know if I was lucky enough to get it right, but I cannot locate any error in option A.

Please if you can help me in locating one.

Thank You

[RonPurewal]

ok, here is the deal:
"capability/ability" and "capable/able" are used to describe what someone/something can do.

thus, in most cases, these descriptions are restricted to people and animals.
Most symphony conductors are capable of discerning the individual sound of each instrument as the orchestra plays.
Birds, unlike humans, are able to inhale and exhale simultaneously.

as far as i know, "able"/"ability" MUST be used for people or animals, and can't be used to describe inanimate objects.

on the other hand, you can use "capable/capability" for an inanimate object--as long as you're talking about something that the object itself can do.
e.g.,
A nuclear bomb weighing only a few ounces is capable of obliterating an entire metropolitan area.