20. Which is the best way to revise and combine sentences 3 and 4: 'Lorca was the oldest son of a wealthy landowner. He studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.'
Answer: A
Lorca, the oldest son of a wealthy landowner, studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
This revision effectively combines the two sentences into a single, fluid statement that maintains the original meaning while improving clarity and conciseness.
A) Lorca, the oldest son of a wealthy landowner, studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
This option is correct as it combines the two original sentences into one cohesive statement. The structure enhances readability and flow by introducing Lorca's background as the oldest son of a wealthy landowner directly before mentioning his academic pursuits, establishing a clear connection between his upbringing and his education.
B) Lorca was the oldest son of a wealthy landowner. He studied literature and law at the University of Granada. He later turned to writing full-time.
While this option retains the original information, it fails to combine the sentences effectively. The separation of ideas into three distinct sentences makes the passage less fluid and cohesive, diminishing the impact of the information being presented about Lorca's progression from his background to his studies and career.
C) Lorca was the oldest son of a wealthy landowner, he studied literature and law at the University of Granada before turning to writing full-time.
This option is incorrect because it improperly connects two independent clauses with just a comma, resulting in a run-on sentence. The lack of a conjunction or proper punctuation leads to grammatical issues, which detracts from the clarity of the information.
D) The oldest son of a wealthy landowner, Lorca studied literature and law at the University of Granada. He turned to writing full-time, later.
This choice is partially correct but ultimately awkward due to the use of "later" at the end of the second sentence. The phrase does not add clarity and interrupts the flow, making it less effective than option A. The separation into two sentences also reduces the cohesiveness of the ideas.
Conclusion
Option A is the best choice as it succinctly combines the relevant details about Lorca's background and education into a single, well-structured sentence. In contrast, the other options either lack fluidity, contain grammatical errors, or unnecessarily separate related ideas, making them less effective in conveying the information about Lorca.