Questão 96569 de Língua Inglesa - PORTAL CONCURSOS 2025

Questão

ID 96569

Disciplina: Língua Inglesa

Assunto: Interpretação de Texto | Text Interpretation

Ano: 2025 Banca: PORTAL CONCURSOS Órgão: PORTAL CONCURSOS

In formal and legal discourse, precision in language is paramount to avoid ambiguity. The use of negative correlative conjunctions, such as 'neither...nor', must strictly adhere to grammatical parallelism and logical consistency. Consider the following excerpt from a judicial review: 'The appellate court found that the defendant's actions were neither justified under the self-defense statute nor did they constitute a reasonable response to the perceived threat.' An analysis of this sentence reveals a potential flaw in its construction, which could be challenged on grounds of syntactical impropriety in a high-stakes legal argument. Based on the principles of advanced English grammar, what is the most accurate assessment of the sentence?

Alternativa A:
The sentence is grammatically impeccable, as 'neither' correctly modifies 'justified' and 'nor' correctly introduces the subsequent clause.
Alternativa B:
The sentence contains a fault in parallelism; 'neither' is followed by a participial phrase ('justified under...') while 'nor' is followed by an independent clause ('did they constitute...').
Alternativa C:
The use of 'neither' is incorrect; it should be replaced with 'either' to maintain logical negation in the context of the court's finding.
Alternativa D:
The word 'nor' is redundant, as the negation is already established by 'neither'. The sentence would be correct if it read '...were neither justified...or did they constitute...'.
Alternativa E:
The sentence is correct because in legal English, stylistic inversion after 'nor' is mandatory for emphasis, overriding standard parallelism rules.

Estatísticas Cadernos

Questão 96569

Continue estudando na plataforma