Why is "that" wrong in answer choice E? Why can't we use a relative pronoun in this case? Thank you.


An economic recession can result from a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.
a. a lowering of employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, which causes people to cut consumer spending and start a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

b a lowering of employment rates triggered by dropping investment, which cause people to cut consumer spending and starts a cycle of layoffs leading back to even lower employment rates.

c. falling employment rates triggered by a drop in investment, causing cutbacks in consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead to even lower employment rates.

d. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, causing people to cut consumer spending and starting a cycle of layoffs that lead back to even lower employment rates.

e. falling employment rates that are triggered by a drop in investment, that cause cutbacks in consumer spending and the start of a cycle of layoffs leading to even lower employment rates.

The original sentence contains a clause beginning with "which" that logically describes the result of lower employment rates. However, as written, this clause seems to describe the result of "a drop in investment" because "which" modifies the noun just before it. We need to find a replacement that makes the causal relationship clear. Additionally, the phrase "causes people to cut consumer spending" is wordy and somewhat illogical since the people are the consumers. A more concise way to say this would be "causes cutbacks in consumer spending." Finally, the use of "back" is redundant, as it is implied by the word "cycle".

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The use of "which" incorrectly suggests that "dropping investment" "causes people to cut consumer spending" when, in fact, the employment rates cause this phenomenon. Additionally, the phrase "cause people to cut consumer spending" is wordy and the use of "back" is redundant, as it is implied by the word "cycle".

(C) CORRECT. This choice makes clear, through the use of the plural verb "cause", that the employment rates are responsible for the cutbacks in spending. Further it uses the concise phrase "cutbacks in consumer spending" and eliminates the redundant word "back."

(D) This choice contains the wordy phrases "that are triggered by", "causing people to cut consumer spending" and the redundant "lead back."

(E) The construction ", that" is incorrect. Also, "the start of a cycle of layoffs" is awkward.

I think in (E)

- the phrase 'that are triggered by' is wordy.
- 'that' in 'that cause cutback' refers to 'drop in employment' - but that is not the case, because we know falling employment rates are responsible for the cutbacks in spending.

aaa, I tend to agree with Guest79 - the first "that" is awkward and unnecessary; the second "that," however, creates a provable grammatical error. "That cause," though lacking subject-verb agreement, seems to refer to "a drop in investment" rather than the "falling employment rates." To correct for this ambiguity, "causing" is the proper choice.

-dan