You simply should not have an apostrophe, at all, on "questions". -- Joe Blow May 14 '11 at 12:34 1 @Joe Blow: If you drop that apostrophe there's no 'possessive' associated with questions , which makes the sentence semantically invalid, rather than just non-standard at the lexical level. -- FumbleFingers May 14 '11 at 14:48 @Fumble -- not really. The sentence is a shambles - the grammar equivalent of those images you can look at two different ways. (Or perhaps, a Rorschach test!!) You're seeing it along the lines of "tag's removal" -and- "question's removal". Right? Rather it's a possessive that happens to be split up by a strange interjection: "argue for the tag's (by the way, those tags have abc and xyz and pqr, which would also be lost) removal". In the strange interjection there happens to be a plural, end of story. All the answers below, totally rewrite - the correct uber-approach! -- Joe Blow May 14 '11 at 16:36 2 Answers This is a creative application of the apostrophe to avoid re-ordering: I hesitate to argue for the complete removal of the tag (and of the questions that go with it). It's not outright incorrect to apply the apostrophe in order to omit of , but it is highly unusual to qualify a possessive noun with a clause introduced by that , which , etc.; I think most would frown on it for possible ambiguity or lack of clarity in other situations. Still, I daresay I'm rather