"Some scientists have been critical of the laboratory tests conducted by the Federal Drug Administration of the grounds that the amounts of suspected carcinogens fed to animals far exceeds those that humans could consume."

Underlined: far exceeds those that humans could consume


choices:

-far exceeds those that humans could consume
-exceeds by far those humans can consume
-far exceeds those humans are able to consume
-exceed by far those able to be consumed by humans (chosen)
-far exceed those that humans could consume (correct)

thought process:
I saw that 'far exceeds' was incorrect, as the subject of 'exceeds' is carcinogens, but I was thrown off by the tense of 'could', thinking that 'are able to consume' would have been the best choice.

Hey Emily,

Good question. "Could consume" is in the indicative tense, which is actually preferred in this case. The meaning of the sentence is that we feed animals more carcinogens than humans are able to consume. "Consume" is in that indicative tense (e.g. Humans consume vegetables - no need for past or future...it just happens regardless of time), and "could" adds that conditional "able to". It's not noteworthy that animals consume more chemicals than we DO consume...it's noteworthy that we give them more than we could (ever) consume - there's that element of impossibility that makes it a noteworthy sentence.

While down between D and E, I'd say that they both say the same thing, but that E says it much more directly.