A natural response of communities devastated by earthquake or flood is to rebuild on the same site, overlooking the possibility that the forces that caused it could be repeated.
overlooking the possibility that the forces that caused it could be repeated
overlooking the possibility that the forces causing it could be repeated
overlooking that the forces that caused the disaster could also cause another one
without considering that the forces causing the disaster could be repeated
without considering that the forces that caused the disaster could also cause another such disaster
The malicious modifier: The comma + verb-ing action modifier “overlooking the possibility…” logically modifies the preceding action “is to rebuild” by presenting the result of this action. However, this modifier fails to logically connect with the subject of the modified action, “A natural response.” It does not make much sense to say that a response overlooks something. It makes more sense to say devasted communities overlook the possibility. But this connection is not possible in this sentence.
The problematic pronoun: The sentence uses the singular pronoun “it” but has no antecedent for it. Did you ask why it cannot refer to “earthquake” or “flood“? It cannot because the sentence does not talk about communities affected by an earthquake or a flood. The sentence talks about communities that get ruined by any natural calamity.
The minced-up meaning: The last part of the sentence says, “… the forces… could be repeated.” This meaning is totally illogical. It is clear from the context of the sentence that natural calamities such as earthquakes or floods can reoccur at the same site.
The ridiculous redundancy: The sentence uses “possibility” and “could” to talk about the same event. The usage of both words together makes the sentence redundant.
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论