Hi Alan,

Although to write "Lucas climbed his sister's new wardrobe" is grammatically valid in the sense of it qualifying as a transitive construction, does this read as likely?

You could just as well have written "Lucas has put up (assembled) his sister's new wardrobe."

Here we have the verb acting directly on the object (transitively) but, I would argue, a more feasible construction? He has erected a flat-pack wardrobe (say).

I don't know for sure, the answer that would be acceptable to the "bot"; but I just offer you an alternative way to look at the question.

Bonne continuation.

Jim

You are correct in that there is a certain ambiguity. As Jim says, usually there's enough context to make it clear what you're talking about. On the other hand, I'd like to point out that English has the same sense of ambiguity:

I'll take the sucker down! --> I'm going to kill "the sucker." / I'll take "the sucker" down to the basement.

I'm going to take this up. --> I'm going to "start this as a hobby". / I'm going to "take it up to the attic".

For what it is worth, I remember this question and being a bit confused by the same thing.  This sentence was one of the choices in a question where you were supposed to mark one, some or all of the answers that could be correct, with no additional context given.  While perhaps a less frequent scenario than some of the other responses, it also seemed like a grammatically correct construction to me.  If the site's French masters think it is a sentence that is too bizarre to be correct then I trust their judgment (and I'm here to learn exactly those kinds of nuances) but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who found that one a little tricky.