In this example, the existing phrasing means that everything which follows “who,” a relative pronoun, should be interpreted as part of the relative clause, as there is no other comma in the sentence to mark the end of the clause. This leaves the sentence erroneously incomplete, as the complementizer “that” suggests that something Americans have “no reason” to do will be introduced after the relative clause. In examining the other choice which doesn’t contain a comma, it appears similarly erroneous, as the relative clause continues through the end of the sentence, never revealing what it is that Americans have “no reason” to do. The choice containing “to have” seems like it might work, as the relative clause is closed with a comma, but in removing the relative clause to examine the remaining sentence, “no reason that Americans to have a hand” remains, and it becomes clear that the complementizer “that” and the infinitive construction “to have” do not function together. The final choice, with “should have,” uses the relative clause correctly, and in removing it, we are left with “no reason that Americans should have a hand,” which is entirely grammatically correct.

In this example, the existing phrasing means that everything which follows “who,” a relative pronoun, should be interpreted as part of the relative clause, as there is no other comma in the sentence to mark the end of the clause. This leaves the sentence erroneously incomplete, as the complementizer “that” suggests that something Americans have “no reason” to do will be introduced after the relative clause. In examining the other choice which doesn’t contain a comma, it appears similarly erroneous, as the relative clause continues through the end of the sentence, never revealing what it is that Americans have “no reason” to do. The choice containing “to have” seems like it might work, as the relative clause is closed with a comma, but in removing the relative clause to examine the remaining sentence, “no reason that Americans to have a hand” remains, and it becomes clear that the complementizer “that” and the infinitive construction “to have” do not function together. The final choice, with “should have,” uses the relative clause correctly, and in removing it, we are left with “no reason that Americans should have a hand,” which is entirely grammatically correct.

In this example, the existing phrasing means that everything which follows “who,” a relative pronoun, should be interpreted as part of the relative clause, as there is no other comma in the sentence to mark the end of the clause. This leaves the sentence erroneously incomplete, as the complementizer “that” suggests that something Americans have “no reason” to do will be introduced after the relative clause. In examining the other choice which doesn’t contain a comma, it appears similarly erroneous, as the relative clause continues through the end of the sentence, never revealing what it is that Americans have “no reason” to do. The choice containing “to have” seems like it might work, as the relative clause is closed with a comma, but in removing the relative clause to examine the remaining sentence, “no reason that Americans to have a hand” remains, and it becomes clear that the complementizer “that” and the infinitive construction “to have” do not function together. The final choice, with “should have,” uses the relative clause correctly, and in removing it, we are left with “no reason that Americans should have a hand,” which is entirely grammatically correct.

In this example, the existing phrasing means that everything which follows “who,” a relative pronoun, should be interpreted as part of the relative clause, as there is no other comma in the sentence to mark the end of the clause. This leaves the sentence erroneously incomplete, as the complementizer “that” suggests that something Americans have “no reason” to do will be introduced after the relative clause. In examining the other choice which doesn’t contain a comma, it appears similarly erroneous, as the relative clause continues through the end of the sentence, never revealing what it is that Americans have “no reason” to do. The choice containing “to have” seems like it might work, as the relative clause is closed with a comma, but in removing the relative clause to examine the remaining sentence, “no reason that Americans to have a hand” remains, and it becomes clear that the complementizer “that” and the infinitive construction “to have” do not function together. The final choice, with “should have,” uses the relative clause correctly, and in removing it, we are left with “no reason that Americans should have a hand,” which is entirely grammatically correct.

In this example, the existing phrasing means that everything which follows “who,” a relative pronoun, should be interpreted as part of the relative clause, as there is no other comma in the sentence to mark the end of the clause. This leaves the sentence erroneously incomplete, as the complementizer “that” suggests that something Americans have “no reason” to do will be introduced after the relative clause. In examining the other choice which doesn’t contain a comma, it appears similarly erroneous, as the relative clause continues through the end of the sentence, never revealing what it is that Americans have “no reason” to do. The choice containing “to have” seems like it might work, as the relative clause is closed with a comma, but in removing the relative clause to examine the remaining sentence, “no reason that Americans to have a hand” remains, and it becomes clear that the complementizer “that” and the infinitive construction “to have” do not function together. The final choice, with “should have,” uses the relative clause correctly, and in removing it, we are left with “no reason that Americans should have a hand,” which is entirely grammatically correct.

In this example, the choice containing “who” and “which” both suggest that the information to follow is part of a relative clause. The comma before “which” suggests that the clause is non-restrictive, while the absence of a comma before “who” suggests that the clause is restrictive. In either case, however, the sentence is left without a conjugated verb, so neither choice is the correct one. The choice “industry has testified” might seem right, as there appears to be a conjugated verb, but there is subject-verb disagreement between “experts,” which is plural, and “has,” which is singular. The existing phrasing, on the other hand, has correct subject-verb agreement, meaning the sentence contains a conjugated verb and is otherwise grammatically correct.

In this example, the choice containing “who” and “which” both suggest that the information to follow is part of a relative clause. The comma before “which” suggests that the clause is non-restrictive, while the absence of a comma before “who” suggests that the clause is restrictive. In either case, however, the sentence is left without a conjugated verb, so neither choice is the correct one. The choice “industry has testified” might seem right, as there appears to be a conjugated verb, but there is subject-verb disagreement between “experts,” which is plural, and “has,” which is singular. The existing phrasing, on the other hand, has correct subject-verb agreement, meaning the sentence contains a conjugated verb and is otherwise grammatically correct.

In this example, the choice containing “who” and “which” both suggest that the information to follow is part of a relative clause. The comma before “which” suggests that the clause is non-restrictive, while the absence of a comma before “who” suggests that the clause is restrictive. In either case, however, the sentence is left without a conjugated verb, so neither choice is the correct one. The choice “industry has testified” might seem right, as there appears to be a conjugated verb, but there is subject-verb disagreement between “experts,” which is plural, and “has,” which is singular. The existing phrasing, on the other hand, has correct subject-verb agreement, meaning the sentence contains a conjugated verb and is otherwise grammatically correct.

In this example, the choice containing “who” and “which” both suggest that the information to follow is part of a relative clause. The comma before “which” suggests that the clause is non-restrictive, while the absence of a comma before “who” suggests that the clause is restrictive. In either case, however, the sentence is left without a conjugated verb, so neither choice is the correct one. The choice “industry has testified” might seem right, as there appears to be a conjugated verb, but there is subject-verb disagreement between “experts,” which is plural, and “has,” which is singular. The existing phrasing, on the other hand, has correct subject-verb agreement, meaning the sentence contains a conjugated verb and is otherwise grammatically correct.

In this example, the choice containing “who” and “which” both suggest that the information to follow is part of a relative clause. The comma before “which” suggests that the clause is non-restrictive, while the absence of a comma before “who” suggests that the clause is restrictive. In either case, however, the sentence is left without a conjugated verb, so neither choice is the correct one. The choice “industry has testified” might seem right, as there appears to be a conjugated verb, but there is subject-verb disagreement between “experts,” which is plural, and “has,” which is singular. The existing phrasing, on the other hand, has correct subject-verb agreement, meaning the sentence contains a conjugated verb and is otherwise grammatically correct.