Question

During the U.S. Supreme Court case of 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford, two justices opposed the judgment for the defendant, half as many as later dissented with another landmark case, 2000's Bush v. Gore.

• A. judgment for the defendant, half as many as later dissented with
• B. defendant's judgment, half those that gave their dissent later in
• C. judgment of the defendant, half the number as dissented later on
• D. defendant's judgment, which was half the ones who later dissented in
• E. judgment for the defendant, half those who later dissented in

Hint:

When multiple options seem flawed, identify the most clear-cut, non-negotiable grammatical error in the original sentence. In this case, it's the wrong preposition. The best answer will be the one that fixes this primary error, even if it's not perfectly phrased in other ways.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question tests idiomatic usage (prepositions), comparative structures, and factual accuracy. The sentence compares the number of dissenting justices in two different Supreme Court cases. The facts are: 2 justices dissented in *Dred Scott v. Sandford* (a 7-2 decision), and 4 justices dissented in *Bush v. Gore* (a 5-4 decision). The number 2 is indeed half of 4. The main task is to correct the grammatical structure of the comparison.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the errors in the original underlined portion and evaluate the options.
Original Phrase Errors: The main error is the preposition "with." The correct idiom is to "dissent in" a case or "dissent from" a ruling. One does not "dissent with" a case.
Analysis of Options: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{(A) This is the original option and is incorrect because of the preposition "with." } \\ \bullet & \text{(B) "defendant's judgment" is acceptable, but "judgment for the defendant" is more precise. The phrase "half those that gave their dissent" is wordy and clumsy. } \\ \bullet & \text{(C) "judgment of the defendant" is incorrect phrasing. "half the number as dissented" is an ungrammatical comparative structure. } \\ \bullet & \text{(D) The phrase "which was half the ones who" is extremely poor grammar and stylistically weak. } \\ \bullet & \text{(E) This option makes two key changes. First, it correctly uses the preposition "in" ("dissented in another landmark case"). This is a crucial correction. Second, it changes the comparative structure from "half as many as" to "half those who." While "half as many as" is technically a better structure for comparing numbers, "half those who" can be seen as a compressed, acceptable way to compare the number of people in two groups. Given that all other options have more severe grammatical flaws, this option is the best choice because it corrects the most definite error (the preposition) while using a slightly imperfect but understandable comparative phrase. } \\ \end{array}\]

Step 3: Final Answer:
The most significant error in the original sentence is the incorrect preposition "with." Option (E) is the only one that corrects this preposition to the proper "in" without introducing more severe grammatical errors like those found in options B, C, and D. Therefore, it is the best available answer.