modifier 2

[Gurpinder]

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the
patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings
that, to test the system, a colleague of his had
managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws,
an observation about electric current first made in
1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of
elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first
made in 1845 and
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric
current first made in 1845 and it is
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about
electric current first made in 1845 and
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first
made in 1845, it is
(E) laws that was an observation about electric
current, first made in 1845, and is

[reply2spg]

A is best here

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the
patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings
that, to test the system, a colleague of his had
managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws,
an observation about electric current first made in
1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of
elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and - correct
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is - which refers to laws and laws is plural, we need were and not was
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and - no antecedent for 'it'
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is - we need connector 'and' before 'it is'. Otherwise it is run on sentence
(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is - same as B

[Gurpinder]

A is best here

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the
patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings
that, to test the system, a colleague of his had
managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws,
an observation about electric current first made in
1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of
elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and - correct
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is - which refers to laws and laws is plural, we need were and not was
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and - no antecedent for 'it'
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is - we need connector 'and' before 'it is'. Otherwise it is run on sentence
(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is - same as B

what if (B) was.....which were....would it be ok then?

[reply2spg]

No. It will not. 'and it is' will break the ||ism. let's see the sentence below by putting B, with were, in sentence.

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, which were an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

what if (B) was.....which were....would it be ok then?

[RyanDark]

It would be wrong then.If we make it were then I think there would be an agreement issue.The noun modified here is one of KLs and not just KLs.So we need WAS and not WERE.

BTW whats wrong with B.It seems okay to my eyes.Any meaning issues?

[vishalj]

IMO A.

"It" is at all not appropriate here in B. It opens a can of worms.

The relative clause "Which" is modifying one of the laws. Since "it" is inside the relative clause, it could refer to "observation" or " one of the laws". Also, when "and" is used in the relative clause, look for parallel construction.


(B) laws, which was an observation about electric
current first made in 1845 and it is

[RyanDark]

Ok..so if we have to eliminate B here,the culprit would be "it" reference right and not the which were vs which was issue.

[vishalj]

You got it , Ryandark ( funny name 0

[gmat_perfect]

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the
patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings
that, to test the system, a colleague of his had
managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws,
an observation about electric current first made in
1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of
elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first
made in 1845 and
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric
current first made in 1845 and it is
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about
electric current first made in 1845 and
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first
made in 1845, it is
(E) laws that was an observation about electric
current, first made in 1845, and is

The issues:

1. Comma + FANBOYS+Clause:

Two clauses can be joined by FANBOYS (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So). In that case, a comma MUST be used before FANBOYS.
This kills option B since no comma has been used before "and it is..."

2. Namely + NOUN/NOUN Phrase/Noun Clause:

We can use NOUN/NOUN phrase/ NOUN clause after "namely", but we cannot use "independent clause".

This kills C because it has used "namely, it is..", where "it is..." is an independent clause.

3. Two independent clauses cannot be joined without any punctuation between them.

Without using any punctuation(comma, semicolon etc.), we cannot join two clauses. If we do so, that sentence will be a run on--one of the clauses run into the other.

--> This kills option D because after eliminating the non-essential modifier (the red portion), we get "a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws it is.."---two clauses "A colleague had managed" and "it is"have been joined without punctuation.

Just a Reminder:

two clauses can be joined in the following ways:--

1. Comma + FANBOYS:

Example:

He was eating, and I was reading.

2. Semicolon(;):

He was eating; I was reading.

3. Clause + Semicolon + Conjunctive Adverbs + Comma +Clause:

He was eating; however, I was reading.

4. Period + Capital:

He was eating. I was reading.

5. Subordination:

While he was eating, I was reading.

List of conjunctive adverbs:

accordingly, furthermore, moreover, similarly,
also, hence, namely, still,
anyway, however, nevertheless, then,
besides, incidentally, next, thereafter,
certainly, indeed, nonetheless, therefore,
consequently, instead, now, thus,
finally, likewise, otherwise, undoubtedly,
further, meanwhile.

4. Noun + that + verb:

In this case, the verb after that agrees with the NOUN.

--> This kills option E because in "laws that was" "was" does not agree with the NOUN "laws", which is plural.

A is the winner.

[reply2spg]

Learnt about FANBOYS. @Perfect - now I know why you choose that name

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the
patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings
that, to test the system, a colleague of his had
managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws,
an observation about electric current first made in
1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of
elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first
made in 1845 and
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric
current first made in 1845 and it is
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about
electric current first made in 1845 and
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first
made in 1845, it is
(E) laws that was an observation about electric
current, first made in 1845, and is

The issues:

1. Comma + FANBOYS+Clause:

Two clauses can be joined by FANBOYS (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So). In that case, a comma MUST be used before FANBOYS.
This kills option B since no comma has been used before "and it is..."

2. Namely + NOUN/NOUN Phrase/Noun Clause:

We can use NOUN/NOUN phrase/ NOUN clause after "namely", but we cannot use "independent clause".

This kills C because it has used "namely, it is..", where "it is..." is an independent clause.

3. Two independent clauses cannot be joined without any punctuation between them.

Without using any punctuation(comma, semicolon etc.), we cannot join two clauses. If we do so, that sentence will be a run on--one of the clauses run into the other.

--> This kills option D because after eliminating the non-essential modifier (the red portion), we get "a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws it is.."---two clauses "A colleague had managed" and "it is"have been joined without punctuation.

Just a Reminder:

two clauses can be joined in the following ways:--

1. Comma + FANBOYS:

Example:

He was eating, and I was reading.

2. Semicolon(;):

He was eating; I was reading.

3. Clause + Semicolon + Conjunctive Adverbs + Comma +Clause:

He was eating; however, I was reading.

4. Period + Capital:

He was eating. I was reading.

5. Subordination:

While he was eating, I was reading.

List of conjunctive adverbs:

accordingly, furthermore, moreover, similarly,
also, hence, namely, still,
anyway, however, nevertheless, then,
besides, incidentally, next, thereafter,
certainly, indeed, nonetheless, therefore,
consequently, instead, now, thus,
finally, likewise, otherwise, undoubtedly,
further, meanwhile.

4. Noun + that + verb:

In this case, the verb after that agrees with the NOUN.

--> This kills option E because in "laws that was" "was" does not agree with the NOUN "laws", which is plural.

A is the winner.

[gmat_perfect]

@Repy2spg,

Thanks for the compliment.

[minhchau1986]

A: hold on
B: "Which was "following immediate noun "laws". subject-verb agreement
C: eliminate because nothing refers to it
D: same as C-modifier's problem
E: same as B: subject verb agreement

Choose A because one of.....'s laws is observation. it connect grammatically to "first made..." and "now included...". also parallelism