Question: Regulating Pet Shops

That's a great point.

We actually don't consider missing pronoun antecedents when determining whether a clause is dependent or not.

I'd say that this question is approximately 600-level

It really comes down to the question "Who/what explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops?"

With answer choice A, the above question is not answered.

I don't think answer choice C changes the meaning of the sentence. It merely answers the question "Who/what explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops?"

I think you might be agreeing with the explanation in the video :-)

You are correct to conclude that the second clause does, indeed, express a complete thought. This makes the clause independent.

If a clause expresses a complete thought, then the clause is independent.

Great question!

Let's say that what you suggest is true. We still have two issues:

1) What is the subject that goes with EXPLAINING ?
That is, who/what is doing the explaining?

2) Is EXPLAINING the correct form of EXPLAIN?
That is, does its tense/form match the thing that's doing the explaining?
-------------------------------------

You asked "doesn't the fact about breeders over owners does the explaining?"

My answer to that question is "Yes, the FACT about breeders over owners is the thing that does the explaining."

The original sentence does not have any reference to that FACT.
Without the word FACT, it's possible that the person/thing doing the explaining is the pet shops, the buyers or the breeders.

When we insert THIS FACT into the sentence, it's clear that the first part of the sentence is what comprises THIS FACT.

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

GIVEN: Pet shops typically do not screen buyers AS WELL AS breeders do.

In this sentence, AS WELL AS is used to compare the quality of buyer screening that pet shops and breeders perform.

So, an analogous sentence might read "Pet shops typically do not screen buyers AS ACCURATELY AS breeders do."

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

The main issue with D is having two independent clauses separated by merely a comma. That's certainly enough reason to eliminate D.

However, THIS on its own could be considered a little bit ambiguous, whereas THIS FACT removes all ambiguity.

Good idea, but we need WHY here.
Other constructions such as EXPLAINS HOW, EXPLAINS WHERE, EXPLAINS WHO are also acceptable

Good question.

Yes, "This fact explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops" is considered an independent clause.
The answer to that question (what fact?) appears in the first clause.

Here's a similar construction: "Joe is a great tennis player; he practices every day."
The answer to the question " who does HE refer to" appears in the first clause.

Does that help?