Why isn't the answer B?

The depth of a body of water is, largely speaking, irrevelant to whether one can row a boat or not. And to the extent it is relevant, it needs to be deep enough, not shallow enough.

Row doesn't make sense. You don't need shallow water to row across. Wading requires the water to be shallow enough

You wade through shallow water. It would be row if you had a boat, but you don't, and you would want deeper water for that. If it said narrow instead of shallow, you could leap across.

“Shallow” is the key word here. Shallowness would actually making rowing harder, not easier. D is the only answer that goes with shallow.

They are telling you that it is shallow. Perhaps only a few inches deep. You wouldn't get out a bow to row across, you'd just wade across on foot.

It’s because “row” is only used relating to a boat, not relating to just people walking through the stream.

Native speaker here, im assuming the correct answer is D? The question states there isn’t a bridge, implying the speaker is travelling on foot, and therefore doesn’t have a boat which you would need to row

If you’re rowing, you don’t want the water to be very shallow because your boat would get stuck. A shallow stream can simply be waded through.

It should be D imo. How deep the water is shouldn’t matter if you have a rowboat. The fact they’re telling us the river is shallow implies we’re going to try and wade across it

Rowing a boat is bad if the water is shallow and there is a chance of scraping the bottom of the boat. The correct answer would be "wade" because the water needs to be shallow to you to be able to walk on the bottom

Ah yes the classic issue of Row V. Wade

It says the stream is shallow. You wouldn't necessarily use any boat to cross shallow water; you could just wade through it or leap across it.

It’s because the stream being shallow means you wouldn’t need a boat. I don’t know why E is highlighted because that only one that makes sense to me is D, because it’s easier to wade across a stream if it’s shallow. You would leap a stream if it were ‘narrow’.

Rowing would require a boat, and you'd want a stream not to be too shallow for a boat, too. Float doesn't require it be shallow, either. You don't want to dive into shallow water. Leap would require a short distance from one side to the other, not shallow water. Wade makes the most sense, using the shallow water to get across by wading. You don't need to say "row the boat" since "row" implies boat already. If I am at a lake and see a boat with an oar, I could say "I can row across." The problem with this sentence is that your hint for what to pick is "shallow water."

What’s the answer here? Why cross ACDF? Is it incorrect also?

1) You don’t know if you have a boat (that information has not been given to you). 2) You are told the water is shallow, which is directly relevant to one of the answers.

“Row” does not make sense because one cannot row across something shallow.

Row makes no sense. There's no implication of taking a boat. You wanted to cross a bridge, the bridge is out but the water is shallow, implying you'd wade across the water to the other side. No boat, no rowing.

No boat, no row. You're wading.

D. Wade is the answer ... Wade means to walk in shallow water (think angle deep water).

I would answer "wade." The phrase "shallow enough" suggests that the stream has met some sort of criteria for a maximum depth. "Deep enough" would suggest that it has met some criteria for a minimum depth. To row across a stream, there needs to be a minimum depth, not a maximum one. If the water is too shallow, the hull of your boat or raft scrapes the bottom and you don't go anywhere. Rowing across a stream becomes easier when the stream is deeper. Meanwhile, wading across a stream (walking along the bottom) is something that is easier the shallower the stream is. Once the water becomes too deep, wading becomes impossible. So, if a stream is "shallow enough" it becomes possible to wade across it. Side note, the location on a stream or river that is consistently shallow enough to wade across it (or drive across it in some cases) is called a "ford." You may sometimes see that in a verb form such as "we forded the stream," but the word is primarily used in the noun form with the verb being a part of a general structure where some nouns become a verb with the meaning "to use the noun." So, if presented this question, I would have taken "ford" as an appropriate answer over "row."

Of these suggestion's it's D. Hard to paddle in shallow water. Otger option aside from B and D might be dangerous or difficult

you can't row a boat if the water is only a few inches deep. Water being deeper doesn't make it harder to row, but water being shallow can. The wording of the sentence implies that it's something you can only do in shallow water meanwhile wading is when you walk through shallow enough water that you're still touching the ground.

To row is to use a paddle or an oar along with a small watercraft (canoe, kayak), but the question is framed in a way that implies you are on foot. The question uses the word 'stream', which is a small, narrow river, so you could jump/leap across it. I'm not a fan of the question, honestly. If the correct answer is to leap across, then the depth doesn't matter, so it being shallow is a useless detail. However, if the stream is too wide to jump, then depth does matter. It really should've said "...the stream is *narrow* enough at one point..." as now it directly relates to the ability to leap across. Edit: Also, it being shallow doesn't mean you can't row across. Kayaks can easily cross very very shallow water (like only a few inches, depending on weight). If you need to cross a wide stream or river, and it's shallow (but deep enough), rowing across in a kayak is a good option.

A body of water wouldn't be described as "shallow" enough to row across, if anything, it would only be described as "deep" enough. You can row across any body of water that's deep enough to account for the height of the boat you're using. "Shallow enough" implies there is a _maximum_ depth that it's possible to do the activity in. Since there is no _maximum_ depth on when you can row, it doesn't apply. However, to wade across a body of water does have a maximum depth it would be possible at (before you'd have to fully swim) and so wade makes more sense in this context. This isn't an issue of grammar, it's an issue of meaning and context.

It does say shallow AT ONE POINT, so the rest of the stream isn't shallow - so I agree with their answer. I first thought wade but wondered why they gave a different answer.

It’s shallow enough to wade across. (Wade - walk, paddle etc)

To be clear, row is grammatically correct, and yes, you can "row across the river", but as others have pointed out, it is not the correct answer based on the rest of the information - the correct answer should be "wade" based on the fact that the river is "shallow". (And again, as others have said, "leap" is also not the correct answer.)

Apart from what the others said, since you were looking for a bridge, it means you were probably on foot, and therefore looking to walk across the river on foot. So you don't have rowboats and instead are looking for a shallow part to cross the river on foot ie wade across it

There is context missing that would tell you which one to use. If it were a narrow creek, leaping would make sense. But if it’s a river, you’re not gonna leap across a river, so rowing a small bow across would make sense. Some others have said wade as well, which would make sense if it’s a deeper stream, about knee to stomach height. It all depends on the situation that you’re not given.

What does at one point here?

All the options could work in theory (some sound a bit weird like dive across for example though). I think row just doesn't make sense contextually however. None of the options would be made easier to do with the stream being shallow at a certain point except for wade.

wade, although typically you'd wade through a river, not across it. if you can float across it, then it's shallowness doesn't matter. you can't row across without boat/raft. leap would use narrow, not shallow. and diving wouldn't make sense either.

I guess it’s E

Rowing, like floating, is unaffected by depth.  The mention of the stream's shallowness tells you the answer is D.

Because there is no mention of you having a boat, therefore you must walk, walking through shallow water is wading.

The shallowness doesn’t affect whether you can row across. It does affect whether you can wade across, though.

This was the last place I expected find a discussion on row versus wade.

I didn't expect a row vs. wade debate like this...

The answer is D. You *wade* across shallow water (walk on foot through the water). *Row* means you are in a boat.

If it’s shallow water, the boat likely isn’t floating, so you can’t row, and if it’s just deep enough to float, the oars hit the bottom. But you can walk across it, and walking across shallow water is called wading.

to float means the water below you needs to be deep enough and wide enough to lay down in the water to row a boat, boats need deep water so the oars can be used while rowing. to dive the water needs to be deap to wade the water needs to be deep enough to be up to your shoulders/head the stream does not need a bridge because it is shallow which also generally implied being narrow because not much water is there to widen the stream

The answer is wade. You can't float across a shallow stream (you hit the bottom and it's weird?) You can't row across a shallow stream (boat gets stuck and no boat is mentioned) You can't dive because it's to shallow (diving isn't a common way of crossing rivers and streams) You can leap, but this has nothing to do with the shallowness of the stream and there is no information on how wide the stream is. Wading is a specific word to describe walking through water that isn't very deep.

A stream can’t be “shallow enough to row across.” Boats float on the surface. They don’t need the water to be shallow. Deep water is good for a boat, and shallow water is a problem. It’s shallow enough to wade across. To wade, is to walk through shallow water.

"it's shallow enough at one point to" you can't row a boat through shallow water if it was row it would have said "it's deep enough at one point to"

Depth of water has no bearing on whether a boat will float (well, actually water that's **too** shallow could be impossible to row on). But water that's below a certain depth (waist-to-chest-high) **can** be waded through (wading = walking through a shallow body of water).

This is just interpretation of a vague description of a shallow river and deciding whether you can leap over it, row across it, or wade through it. English wise, any could be right.

Because you actually need deep water to row.

Rowing is how you move a boat with an oar. If you don't have a boat, you're not rowing.

we really gonna overturn row v. wade again?

It's because water being shallow does not make it easier to row. If it's shallow enough, that can actually make rowing much more difficult. There is nothing syntactically or grammatically wrong with your answer, it just doesn't make any logical sense.

To me the real answer would be “ford” but it’s not here.

The answer is D wade. It's because it's a type of walk. If the water is shallow enough, you won't float in it and can actually walk to cross.

Wade means your walking across shallow water unless you were carrying a boat with you across the bridge, you aren’t rowing anything

They are looling for a bridge but there is none = they are on foot and do not have a boat. The stream is shallow enough to cross = moving through water on foot due to shallow water. -Float: part of swimming and requires staying still. -Row: requires a boat and cant be done in shallow water. -Dive: part of swimming and requires deep water. -Wade: the act of moving through shallow water on foot. -Leap: a form of jumping forward. Conclussion: Wade is the only verb that fits in this example as its the only vern the can be used to move through shallow water on foot.

Because in this situation, youre not using a boat.

The answer is D, if the water isn’t deep enough for a boat you are not going to row across

A stream is normally too small and shallow to row on (though the song “row, row your boat” suggests otherwise).

It is shallow and you are going across. Leap makes the most sense, maybe wade but you wouldn't speculate your ability to walk through the shallow water, you would speculate if you could leap across.

Diving, rowing and floating are all things we can only do if the water is sufficiently deep. Leap is related to width, not depth. It’s illogical to look for a crossing “shallow enough” to do those things.

Because you want water to be deeper if you want to use a boat.  Boats don't float directly on the surface. They go a bit under. 

This question isn't about grammar. All of these answers work grammatically. The question is about what makes sense contextually. The relevant information is the word "shallow." If you were going to row across in a canoe or something, the shallowness of the water would not be necessary and might even preclude the possibility of using a boat. Similarly, shallowness would not be relevant for "float." If you were going to leap across, you'd look for a spot that was narrow, not shallow. Dive doesn't really make sense as a means of crossing, and if it did, you'd want deep, not shallow. The answer is "wade." This means to walk through water or some other liquid. Here, shallowness would be key information.

All of the words could be used in the fact it’d be a correct sentence. The fact that “across” is there doesn’t matter. This question is more about comprehension and understanding what each of the words mean. You could float across, although floating isn’t intentional enough to be trying to cross the river. You can also row across, but the water being shallow is more likely to prevent this since a boat could get stuck in shallow water. Dive across is the weirdest, since you dive down into water not across it. To wade is similar to walking but only in water. The water being shallow holds significance so this answer makes sense. Finally you can also leap across, but you need a stream to be narrow, not shallow for this to be able to leap across. It could be shallow too, but you’d never use the shallowness to explain why you can leap across.

You can't put a boat in shallow water.

Why couldn't it be float across. Wouldn't you wade through water not wade across?

You can row across if the water is calm enough and if there aren’t too many obstacles (such as sandbars or logjams). Water does not need to be shallow “enough” to row. Being shallow doesn’t help, and if it’s too shallow it can be a problem. It is just as easy to row across deep water. You can float across if the water is calm enough for you to avoid getting swept away, or if you have something to float on (like a log or raft). Being shallow doesn’t help. Diving “across” makes no sense. You dive into water, not across it. For diving, water has to be deep enough. You can leap across if the stream is narrow enough. Being shallow doesn’t help as much. Wading means to walk through water—anything from ankle-deep to chest-deep. Any deeper than that and you have to swim, not wade. Thus water must be shallow enough for wading to be possible. This is the only one that works.

Well, from the context, you would be crossing on a bridge if there was one, so that means you arent on a boat and dont have anything to row.

This is not so much a test of English but of logic. The sentence points out that the stream is shallow at one point, which is actually counter to the needs of a rowing boat. The fact that the stream is shallow might also be an encumbrance to either swimming or diving, and there is no indication as to its width, so leaping across may not be feasible. Therefore, by deduction, wading, which requires shallow water, is the logical answer.

I would've picked either leap or wade, I always picture more of a creek than a river when I hear stream so my instinct would be leap, though the correct answer is likely wade since there was mention of a potential bridge

Shallow qualifier

Man, I sure love these questions where there are two correct answers, as well as a bonus 3rd correct answer. (Wade and leap are the most correct, dive also works, but implies some stuff that may or may not be true)

As others have mentioned, “shallow” is the key word here. It implies you’re trying to wade across rather than swimming, floating, or rowing. Floating and rowing are ways you could cross at a calm, deep section of river. Shallow sections tend to be fast moving so floating and rowing wouldn’t work. Diving doesn’t relate to crossing a steam at all, but you wouldn’t want to dive in shallow water anyway. Leaping across a stream relies on the stream being narrow, not shallow.

For a deep body of water, you might float across, row across, or if narrow enough then leap across. It doesn't make much sense to "dive" across water, but technically "dive" can be used similarly to "leap", so you might dive (through the air) across a narrow but deep body of water. The only one of the options that you could \*not\* do to cross water if the water was too deep, is wade. Wading is the term for crossing water on foot and remaining in contact with the bottom of the body of water. If water gets too deep, then it's impossible to walk across it, thus the stream being "shallow enough" is what enables wading.

You need depth (“the stream is deep enough to…”) to float, dive, or row. You need lack of depth (ie shallowness) to wade.

Because nobody has ever said that a body of water is **too deep** to row across.

If I see "bridge" in this context my first thought would be that I am in an SUV and the appropriate verb is "drive", based on many SUV commercials...

Yea, if water is shallow enough to wade, ya wade. It does not need to be shallow to row

Row doesn’t make sense because you’d have to have a boat to do it. I’m not native but if answer E is correct, „leap across” in this situation could mean jumping across like „jumping across rocks in the river” if the water is really shallow.

The issue isn't language, it's logic. Rowing a boat doesn't need the water to be shallow. However, it seems like the "correct" answer is "leap," which *also* doesn't need the water to be shallow. I'd say "wade," since the depth of the water actually matters (to "wade" is to walk through the water).

As others have pointed out, the key information is that the stream is "shallow enough", thus indicating that shallowness makes the method easier. While all answers are grammatically correct, only one (wade) is a method made easier by shallowness.

Nah, fuck all those answers. The answer is clearly 'Ford', because we be playin' the Oregon trail.

It’s shallow. It’s D. Wading indicates shallowness.

In the question, you are told the water is shallow enough to.... You can row a boat on any depth of water, it doesn't need to be shallow water. The only answer that would need shallow water is wade across it.

You've been told that the water is shallow and that you are looking for a bridge. So it's a safe assumption to assume you're on foot and not on a boat. This means that row isn't the correct word as you aren't in a boat.

That's just a bad question in general but I would guess wade. Row would imply a boat or raft in use.

The river is *shallow* enough at one point to allow one of those verbs to be possible. The only one that requires the water to be shallow is wading.

Shallow refers to the depth of the water, or lack thereof. A body of water can’t really be too deep to row across, and if it’s too shallow the boat wouldn’t be able to float. So B doesn’t really make sense. Only D needs the stream to be shallow enough to do it.

Wade as in walking through shallow water. A stream that can be waded through is probably much too shallow to row in

One doesn't need it shallow in order to row. One can row in deep water. The phrase "shallow ENOUGH TO" requires an action that requires shallowness -- hence WADE.

The stream wouldn't have to be shallow to row a boat across it.

because the right answer is D.

Context says the answer should be “wade” because that’s the only action where the stream being shallow matters and is an advantage.

Should be E.

To float would be to float on the water. To row would require a boat, which we don't have. To dive would be to go under the water To wade through the water is to walk in shallow water. So D, wade.

to be fair, A, B, and D are all technically valid

There is no boat.

Honestly I feel like the fact that it’s a stream is the answer here. That implies it’s a very small/narrow body of water, as opposed to a creek or river.

You're rowing Therefore, you're in a boat Therefore, why would the water need to be shallow enough? If anything it would need to be deep enough. Also, if it's a stream and not a river, it kinda implies that this body of water is narrow, small, shallow and fast moving - not something you would want, or could, row across.

D is correct

It says the answer is E.