Why can't we have a costly requirment?

[snve]

As the subject of the thread is pretty clear...

I request any one of you from Manhattan Staff help me to resolve the above query in the following question



New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

A) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.
B) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation.
C) requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties.
D) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties.
E) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties

OG: E

[RonPurewal]

As the subject of the thread is pretty clear...

I request any one of you from Manhattan Staff help me to resolve the above query in the following question



New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

A) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.
B) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation.
C) requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties.
D) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties.
E) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties

OG: E

think very, very literally. it's not the requirement itself that costs money; it's the processes of irrigation and application of fertilizer.
you must always pick choices that are correct in a completely literal sense.

--

also, "requirement of X by Y" is not idiomatic.

[madhavbatra]

As the subject of the thread is pretty clear...

I request any one of you from Manhattan Staff help me to resolve the above query in the following question



New hardy varieties of rice show promise of producing high yields without costly requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.

A) requirements of irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer by earlier high-yielding varieties.
B) requirements by earlier high-yielding varieties of application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation.
C) requirements for application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation of earlier high-yielding varieties.
D) application of commercial fertilizer and irrigation that was required by earlier high-yielding varieties.
E) irrigation and application of commercial fertilizer that were required by earlier high-yielding varieties

OG: E

think very, very literally. it's not the requirement itself that costs money; it's the processes of irrigation and application of fertilizer.
you must always pick choices that are correct in a completely literal sense.

--

also, "requirement of X by Y" is not idiomatic.

Hi Ron, a small clarification please.
I eliminated E because I thought it read as irrigation of commercial fertilizer and application of commercial fertilizer but obviously I was wrong. I think because there is no "of" following irrigation it is therefore correct???

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, a small clarification please.
I eliminated E because I thought it read as irrigation of commercial fertilizer and application of commercial fertilizer but obviously I was wrong. I think because there is no "of" following irrigation it is therefore correct???

there are 2 processes discussed: (a) irrigation, and (b) application of fertilizer. so, the correct way to read this wording is "(irrigation) and (application of fertilizer)".

i mean, you'll find quite a few constructions that you could read in ways that are incorrect -- but, as long as you can read them in ways that *are* correct (and unambiguous), then they're fine.
btw, this is why legal language looks as awful as it does -- if you are looking for language that can never possibly be read in *any* incorrect way, that's how it's going to wind up looking.