Spotted in a bit of political commentary:
If the Romney team believed their own inevitability rhetoric, failing to invest for victory yesterday just as they did before South Carolina, that doesn’t auger well for their ability to make sound decisions later on.
What’s the problem? (Or should that be “What are the problems?”)
“Deft, generous, wise and insightful, Roy Jacobsen’s experience-based blog is one of the best bangs for the click that any writer will find on the Internet.”—Arthur Plotnik
“Writing – Clear and Simple proves that it doesn’t take a professional to write clearly and with impact.” —Top 100 Blogs to Improve Your Writing in 2010
One of “The Top 30 Blogs on Writing” according to the Delaware Employment Law Blog.
"Your website rocks!"—William Van Benschoten
First one I spotted is the subjunctive “believed.” From the rest of the passage, looks to me like the writer intended the indicative. Then there’s that “their,” which doesn’t match “team.” (Similar errors throughout the passage.) So I’d rewrite the opening phrase: “If the Romney team believes its own inevitability rhetoric, ….”
That word “auger” is wrong. I think the writer meant “augur.” Finally, I’d reduce “later on” to “later.”
Team is a singular noun. The team believes its own rhetoric. The members believe their contributions.
I also hate “invest for victory.” And “yesterday” make it ambiguous – was the team to invest yesterday or was the victory to be yesterday?
augur, not auger!!
Their, they, and their should be its, it, and its because the subject of the sentence, team, is singular, not plural, and requires a singular pronoun.
I see three dependent clauses
If . . .
Failing . . .
That . . .
but no independent clause. I would also include as additional problems everything Ray Ward mentioned.
And the paragraph rambles, obfuscating any actual point the author tried to make.
I have to admit that, at first, I was so bothered by the misuse of auger instead of augur that I didn’t notice what a mess the rest of the sentence was. But a mess it is.
Granted, this was on a blog, and blog posts are frequently dashed off and posted with no editor’s oversight, or even a single write/review/revise cycle. And one can cipher out the author’s likely intended meaning. But readers should not have to work at ciphering out what a sentence means.
So all of you win 500 points.