1

Reading this article, there is a line,

In 2020, when the program launched, many businesses reported being shut out of the first waves of funding when hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated within days and better connected businesses – that had previous relationships with bigger banks – were able to get approved before other businesses had had their applications considered.

whichi, simply I don't understand at all.

Question 1

"for" in replace of "and"?

when hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated within days and better connected businesses – that had previous relationships with bigger banks

Wouldn' this "and" be rather "for"? Meaning, in 2020 this prohram was launched it was small businesses which had had previously good relationship with bigger banks, were subject to the first funding.

Question 2

What does this last line mean?

were able to get approved before other businesses had had their applications considered.

Is this line trying to say same with above?

Thank you for the help in advance(m_m).

1

In 2020, when the program launched, many businesses reported being shut out of the first waves of funding when hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated within days and better connected businesses – that had previous relationships with bigger banks – were able to get approved before other businesses had had their applications considered.

It's something of a run-on sentence, but IMO perfectly clear. Let me re parse it.

In 2020, when the program launched, many businesses reported being shut out of the first waves of funding when hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated within days.

Better connected businesses – that had previous relationships with bigger banks – were able to get approved before other businesses had had their applications considered.

The better connected businesses were also in general bigger, and used bigger banks.

3
  • Huh, it makes sense. I'm sorry @SeowjoohengSingapore – Kentaro May 8 at 7:45
  • But don't you think this sentence is so bad worded? – Kentaro May 8 at 7:50
  • No. It's a complex thought with a lot packed into the sentence and combining several ideas to subtly convey the concept. Bigger, wealthier businesses used bigger, more politically connected banks and by doing so compounded their advantages. The little guy got screwed, This is how it shouldn't be done, and why people complain about big business and corruption. But the writer didn't say that, just described it to let you draw your own conclusions. – VWFeature May 8 at 8:10
1

In 2020, when the program [was] launched, many businesses reported being shut out of the first waves of funding when hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated within days[,] and better connected businesses – that had previous relationships with bigger banks – were able to get approved before other businesses had had their applications considered.

There seems to be a missing was and a comma before the coordinating conjunction, and.

Yes, we could replace that and with for.

The revised passage means slightly different from the original; it emphasises the connection some businesses have with the bigger banks as the reason for the skew in fund allocation.

Q2 Your interpretation is fine.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.