1. A table with 5 rows
2. 1 2xx blah 3xx xx blah blah 4xx xx xx blah blah blah 5xx xx xx xx blah blah blah blah
3. A sublist
7. 1. Another table with 3 rows
   2. 1 2xx blah 3xx xx blah blah
   3. We have already seen that the notion of level of grammaticalness is, apparently, determined by a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a descriptively adequate grammar suffices to account for the traditional practice of grammarians. Notice, incidentally, that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features cannot be arbitrary in the strong generative capacity of the theory.
8. An unordered sublist
9. • A table with 2 rows
   • 1zz zz zz duh duh duh 2yy yy yy yy duh duh duh duh
   • In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), this selectionally introduced contextual feature is to be regarded as a parasitic gap construction. With this clarification, the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining a descriptive fact. On our assumptions, the notion of level of grammaticalness is necessary to impose an interpretation on the strong generative capacity of the theory. It appears that a descriptively adequate grammar is not subject to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is rather different from a parasitic gap construction.
10. Of course, the systematic use of complex symbols raises serious doubts about a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is to be regarded as a descriptive fact. This suggests that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features suffices to account for the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

1. item should be A
2. item should be B

1. item should be 1
2. item should be 2

1. item should be ia second paragraph
2. item should be ii

1. item should be I
2. item should be IIanother paragraph