Phrasal verbs - sentence transformation

Forums: Phrasal Verbs, Sentence Transformation
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hello everyone!! Smile

I'm doing "Reading and Use fo English" as a preparation for CAE. I have few questions on this:
1) Why in the first case why it's not possible to fill the gap with: "was taken aback after", although the sentences 1) and 2) are almost the same.
2) Why in the second sentence it's not possible to answer this way:
"taken aback when he was"
Thanks in advance!! Smile

1)
ABACK
Kathy ................... being nominated for an award for bravery.

The correct answer: "was taken aback by/at

2)
ABACK
Johnson was rather ................. elected as President

The correct answer: "was taken aback after being"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 700 • Replies: 3

No top replies

@MartinoKakabo,

Regarding the first sentence, it depends on what you're trying to say. "Was taken aback by/at" explains what, exactly, took Kathy aback. "Was taken aback after," explains when she was taken aback.

Regarding the second sentence, "was taken aback after being" is incorrect. It is duplicating "was" that is already stated in the first part of the sentence.

"Taken aback after being" would be acceptable.

0 Replies

One is taken aback immediately by something, or at the same time, not after the event.

There are Britons in Berlin who get taken aback by the directness of Germans.

We’re often taken aback when a respected governor, political candidate, husband or wife is caught cheating. [NPR]

It was recognizable as self-replicating spam, but still, I was terribly taken aback in that first moment.

You could be taken aback after an event, if another associated event happened, e.g. Johnson was taken aback after being elected as President when he was told he would have to wear a special hat.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Thanks a lot guys! Smile

0 Replies

Phrasal verbs - sentence transformation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know