+0
Hi,

which one is the best choice here? I'm perplexed. Thanks for your help.

Dinosaurs may have terrorized other creatures during their time on Earth, ---------- now it has emerged that some species had a taste for the flesh of their own kind.

A) unless
B) whether
C) because
D) even if
E) so that
1 2
Comments  (Page 2) 
MrPedantic
Hello Kili

1. Dinosaurs may have terrorized other creatures during their time on Earth, unless now it has emerged that some species had a taste for the flesh of their own kind.

— i.e. unless now new research has emerged to show that they wouldn't have terrorized other creatures, because they were too busy terrorizing their own kind. Possible.

but still does "some species" account for all the dinosaurs? Not likely. Even in that case, some species would have terrorized their own kind. What about the other dinosaur species? Would the sentence not be misconstrued?

2. Dinosaurs may have terrorized other creatures during their time on Earth, whether now it has emerged that some species had a taste for the flesh of their own kind.

— only possible if you say "whether or not it has now emerged", i.e. it's of no importance whether they were also cannibals.

3. Dinosaurs may have terrorized other creatures during their time on Earth, because now it has emerged that some species had a taste for the flesh of their own kind.

— possible if the "other creatures" were also members of the cannibal species.

It is possible to conclude that because some dinosaur species had the trait of eating their own kind, the others might have had the same trait but wouldn't interpreting other creatures as cannibal species be pretty far-fetched?

4. Dinosaurs may have terrorized other creatures during their time on Earth, even if now it has emerged that some species had a taste for the flesh of their own kind.

— possible, as the opposite of #3: despite the fact that some species were cannibals, they weren't exclusively cannibals; thus they terrorized other species.

does "some species being cannibals" mean that they do not terrorize other creatures? I don't think so. Then, what is the purpose of the second sentence? It seems to be set there to convince us that cannibals do not terrorize other creatures but I don't think there is such a thing in the law of nature, though I am not sure.

5. Dinosaurs may have terrorized other creatures during their time on Earth, so that now it has emerged that some species had a taste for the flesh of their own kind.

— not possible: having a taste for the flesh of their own kind can't be a consequence of terrorizing other creatures. It should be vice versa.

But like CJ, I'd prefer "but".

MrP
The first clause says "dinosaurs were meat eaters". The second clause says "now it is revealed some of them were cannibals". I feel a phrase like "and moreover" or "and furthermore" best works as the connector.

paco
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I agree with you paco and in my opinion the question is wrong as far as the meaning and connectors are concerned, although it was asked in a nationwide exam in Turkey. I think this meaning cannot be conveyed properly in this structure.
DiamondrgI agree with you paco and in my opinion the question is wrong as far as meaning and connectors are concerned, although it was asked in a nationwide exam in Turkey. I think this meaning cannot be conveyed properly in this structure.
I agree. In every examination, examiners often make a queer question to annoy examinees. It's not good.

paco
so that
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.