Is there a semantic error in this sentence?

Question by George B: Is there a semantic error in this sentence?
The chapter argues the need for a policy on the part of the international
community which distinguishes between countries which are in a state of solvency crisis, for whom it may be appropriate to engineer a debt write-down, and the appropriate solution in the case of liquidity crisis – where it is argued that the appropriate response will be the provision of finance, within the constraints available, supplemented, if need be, by lending, by capital flow standstills and by lending into arrears.

It is an extract from “IMF and its critics” co-authored by many people.

The sentence says “there is a need to distinguish between certain countries and a solution”.

How is the above correct still?? How can the author permit himself of such disrespect of semantics?

Best answer:

Answer by tracey d
i got lost in the first sentence!!

Give your answer to this question below!

4 thoughts on “Is there a semantic error in this sentence?

  1. its a circular argument
    you talk a lot but come back to the same argument
    if a country’s broke you have to borrow money to keep going

  2. That is the longest run on sentence I’ve ever read! It uses which twice, for whom, where, within, and need be. The person who wrote this needs to go back to school and learn how to write properly

  3. If the first paragraph which sets the scene is written by you (as it appears to be) then, my friend, this truly is a case of ‘physician, heal thyself.’. Lousy punctuation, and a serious number of run-ons. Also, in your final question ‘permit of’ is incorrect, there is no need for ‘of’. Similarly, what is the ‘still’ doing there? It is semantically redundant.
    Best not to criticise others when you are so much to blame for the same ‘crime’ yourself.

Leave a Comment