-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
Modifiers and Meaning: a GMATPrep Sentence Correction Problem
Modifiers have always been commonly tested on the GMAT and emphasis on meaning has increased recently. In addition, these two areas can often be quite tricky its hard to articulate exactly what the issues are sometimes.
So lets try talking one through. This problem is from GMATPrep. Set your timer for 1 minute 15 seconds and go for it!
* Initiated five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World on Columbus Day 1992, Project SETI pledged a $100 million investment in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.(A) Initiated five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World on Columbus Day 1992, Project SETI pledged a $100 million investment in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
(B) Initiated on Columbus Day 1992, five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World, a $100 million investment in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence was pledged by Project SETI.(C) Initiated on Columbus Day 1992, five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World, Project SETI pledged a $100 million investment in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
(D) Pledging a $100 million investment in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, the initiation of Project SETI five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World on Columbus Day 1992.
(E) Pledging a $100 million investment in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World, on Columbus Day 1992, the initiation of Project SETI took place.
As we discuss this problem, I really want you to think about how to articulate why something is incorrect (or correct). Pretend youre the teacher and you have to explain it to your students. Also, Im going to give us a bit of a handicap. You arent allowed to use this reason: It changes the original meaning of the sentence.
[Why am I giving us that handicap? Officially, the GMAT rules dont say anything about maintaining the original meaning of the sentence. Unofficially, weve had lots of conversations with GMAC folks who discuss the intent of the sentence and making sure that the intent is maintained or not distorted. But those GMAC folks werent literally the people writing the SC questions, and so were having a bit of an internal debate at MGMAT. Were going back to lots of questions and realizing that, while its true that correct answers do maintain the original meaning or intent of a sentence (assuming that the original meaning was not illogical or ambiguous in some way), there are also other ways to make that call on meaning and Im going to illustrate what I mean using this example. Why are we bothering, when its easier to say just maintain the original meaning! and thats all? Because right now were using an unofficial rule, and theres nothing to prevent them from changing an unofficial rule.]
Okay, back to the problem. What did you think about the original sentence? Did you think it was fine or did you notice anything that might be wrong?
One thing I noticed right away is that the entire sentence is underlined, which gives them a lot of flexibility to move stuff around in the different answers. For that reason, I really want to make sure I have a solid understanding of the sentence structure to start.
I suspect from the opening word, initiated, that were starting the sentence with a modifier. How do I know? Because that ed word is a past participle; if a clause starts with a past participle, then chances are very good that its a modifier and not the main clause. As I continue to read up to the comma, I decide Im right: it is an opening modifier, because I cant find a standard subject or verb here.
What does that mean? Well, whatevers after the comma should be what was initiated at some time. Is it? Sure, a project could be initiated at a certain time, so that looks fine so far. The project then pledged something, so Ive got my subject and verb this stuff after the comma is the main clause. If I strip the sentence down to a more basic structure, I have:
Initiated <at a certain time>, Project SETI pledged <a bunch of money for something>.
But I have to be prepared for them to move things around, to change the main clause, to change the subject and verb, and so on. Because the whole thing is underlined, anything can happen!
Okay, now, back to my original question: did you notice anything that you didnt like about the original sentence?
I thought that the opening modifier sounded awkward. Now I have to figure out whether there really is something wrong with it or whether my ear is fooling me which can happen easily on hard questions.
Lets see. Something was initiated five centuries after something else. The project was initiated five centuries after the Europeans arrived. Also, something happened on Columbus Day 1992. What happened then?
Ah, here we go. This is why it sounded awkward to me. It sounds like the Europeans arrived in the New World on Columbus Day 1992. That sounds funny because I know that happened centuries earlier! But wait were not supposed to have to know history and outside knowledge in order to answer these questions, so they cant expect me to know that, can they?
No, they dont actually expect me to know that. Another part of the sentence tells me that the Europeans cant have arrived on Columbus Day 1992. Earlier, the modifier says that something happened, past tense, five centuries after those Europeans arrived. So, what happened in the past but also five centuries after 1992? Nothing! That would be in the future. :)
So that doesnt make any sense. Of course, they must mean that the Project was initiated on Columbus Day 1992. The actual sentence, however, is ambiguous because it could be read as the Europeans arrived on Columbus Day 1992, even though we know that cant make any sense. Okay, so answer A cant be right; cross it off.
Do any of the other answers make the same error?
As I suspected, the other answers move things around. In B and C, Columbus Day 1992 is very clearly associated with the initiated action, not the arrival of the Europeans.
But look at D! It puts Columbus Day with the European arrival again. Answer E also seems to do the same thing this time, theres a comma separating the European arrival from Columbus Day, but we could still ask ourselves, wait, does Columbus Day go with the European arrival action (before) or the initiation action (after)? Thats ambiguous, so answer E is no good.
Note that the original answer has a meaning that is ambiguous, so we actually do have to change that in the correct answer. Actually, though, we shouldnt think of it as changing something; were simply correcting a problem that exists in the original sentence, just like any grammar error.
Now weve narrowed things down to B and C. Both have the same two opening modifiers:
Initiated on Columbus Day 1992, five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World,
Something was initiated (we dont know what yet), this initiation happened on Columbus Day 1992, that that date was five centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World. That all makes sense.
Now, what follows the second comma? Here, we have a difference in the two answers: answer B uses $100 million investment as the subject and answer C uses Project SETI. Is there any problem with either one of those?
Technically, its possible that either one of those things could have been initiated on Columbus Day 1992. Hmm. Oh, but we should pick answer C over answer B because the original sentence said that Project SETI was initiated then. Right?
Except I said that we werent allowed to use the it changes the original meaning reason. So how else are we going to decide between B and C? We could look for other differences, but we dont have to. There is a reason to prefer Project SETI as the subject vs. investment, even without thinking about the original meaning of the sentence. What is that reason?
See if you can figure it out. Whats the different between these two sentences?
I donated $100 to the animal shelter.
I pledged $100 to the animal shelter.
In the first sentence, Ive already given the animal shelter the $100. What about in the second sentence? Maybe the shelter has my money and maybe it doesnt. So far, Ive only told you that I pledged the money, meaning I promised to give it; I havent necessarily given the money yet.
Why am I bringing this up? How does this apply to answers B and C?
Answer B says, in short:
"Initiated on Columbus Day 1992, a $100 million investment was pledged.
Wait a second now. Initiated means something was started or done or given. The investment was given but the end of the sentence says that it was only pledged! Which is it?
This is why I said at the beginning that we can conclude that B has a bad meaning without having to resort to the changes the original meaning reason. You cant pledge to do something and have already done it at the same time they either pledged the money on Columbus Day 1992 or they actually made the donation that day. Its illogical to say that they did both.
By process of elimination, C is the correct answer. (Note that there are other reasons to get rid of some of the other answers; for instance, answer D is a sentence fragment.)
Key Takeaways for Meaning, Long Underlines, and Modifiers
(1) Long underlines are an indication that the problem is more likely to be testing meaning and / or modifiers, because both of those issues are easier to test when we can move around or change significant portions of the sentence.
(2) While we have gotten used to using the dont change the original meaning unless something is wrong with it standard, Id be a bit wary about that going forward. Instead, focus on two things related to meaning: ambiguity and illogic. Anything illogical is definitely wrong. Ambiguity can be more of a judgment call; when I see something ambiguous, I will often mark it but leave it in until Ive looked at the rest of the answers, just to make sure.
(3) Modifiers often end up being about meaning in the end, as the incorrect placement of a modifier can make a sentence ambiguous or illogical. In this problem, bad modifier placement in A gave us an ambiguous meaning and bad modifier placement in B gave us an illogical meaning.
* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.
Recent Articles
Archive
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009