Sentence Correction

lunarpower wrote:

mmslf75 wrote:#Q1
Can Which" modify the immediately preceding noun only ?
OR
Is it that if i have a sentence of the form "A of B,which".. The "which" may refer to either A or B depending on the context ?

from what we've seen, the gmat is actually pretty consistent on this issue.

what we've seen, so far, is:

the gmat tends to write sentences in which "which" stands for the ELIGIBLE noun that's closest to the comma.
by "eligible", i mean that the noun has to AGREE IN TERMS OF SINGULAR/PLURAL with the FOLLOWING VERB.

here's an example:

the box of nails, which is on the counter, is to be used on this project.

in this case, "which" CANNOT refer to "nails", since the verb "is" is singular. therefore, the nearest eligible noun is "box (of nails)". so, "which" unambiguously stands for that.

in our observation, the gmat has been VERY good about this.
whenever i've seen a "which" that refers to "X of Y" rather than just Y, it has ALWAYS been the case that X was singular and Y was plural (or X was plural and Y was singular), and the verb had a form that matched X and didn't match Y.

hope that helps.

Stacey Koprince wrote:For the second one, the "including" stuff IS actually a classic adverbial modifier. The "many idiosyncrasies" bit is referring not just to twins but to the fact that the study showed striking similarity between twins - and here's an example of such a similarity.

Stacey Koprince wrote:

For e.g the below threads does not seem to modify the entire clause but only the immediately preceding nouns...can you please tell what indeed is the case here ? Is there some special rules applicable for including. If yes, then are there any similar more words.....or if no...then kindly tell what I am missing here...

https://www.beatthegmat.com/very-difficu ... 17893.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/reared-apart ... 40627.html

For the first one, you're right that we can say it modifies the preceding noun only... but take a look at the structure. the modifier is sitting in the middle of a clause, not after the entire clause.
"nations, including X, Y, and Z, were trimming output."
The verb, were, is after the "including" modifier.

You could interpret this in two ways: noun-only (nations) or what you are saying about these nations (these nations were trimming output). Either way, because the -ing is right in the middle of the clause, there's no confusion as to what's being modified: these three are examples of nations that were trimming output.

Be really careful about trying to follow some rule so religiously that you don't actually observe and think about the structure of what's going on. It's better to be a bit more flexible in your thinking here.

Stacey Koprince wrote:You've got a totally different structure in the "cow" one - in that one, (for the original, wrong sentence), you've got an opening noun modifier (the "farmer" bit), and that opening noun modifier is a phrase, not a clause, then the adverbial modifier ("providing") and then the main clause ("cows are").

There's no way to interpret this adverbial modifier as referring to some preceding clause or some clause that it is in the middle of, itself.

I should also add: the word "including" can just mean "for example" so that's why it's okay to place it right after the noun (for which you are giving examples) rather than at the end of the clause.

lunarpower wrote:

#Q2
Secondly, Like "that", can "which" modify the clause preceding it ?

examples please?
not sure exactly what you mean here.

#Q3

When to choose leading to and when to choose lead/leads ?

in this problem, "leading to" is a classic example of a COMMA + -ING modifier.
these modifiers refer to the subject and action of the preceding clause, and imply some sort of causal or resultant relationship between the modifier and the action in that clause.

for instance:

my brother took extra courses every semester throughout his college career, graduating in only three years.
--> correct. in this case, the modifier (graduating in 3 years) correctly describes an immediate consequence of the action in the main clause; furthermore, the subject of "graduating" is the same as the subject of that clause (i.e., my brother).

my brother ate frozen food every day throughout his college career, graduating in only three years.
--> incorrect. there are no grammatical issues with this sentence, but it's absurd in terms of meaning: there is no causal or consequential relationship between eating frozen food and graduating early.

that's a quick rundown on how to use COMMA + -ING.

--

lead/leads is a VERB.
you can use it in any context where there's a legitimate subject for it.
"lead" is plural; "leads" is singular.

lunarpower wrote:

mmslf75 wrote:Thanks VERY MUCH RON.. ,,

In my second query all I want to know is can THAT

In sentence of type " X of Y that "

take a referrent X or Y or X of Y ...

so you're not asking anything about "which", then? (you mentioned "which" explicitly in that question.)

there's no material difference between "referring to X" and "referring to X of Y". if it's written in the sentence as X of Y, then those two options are exactly the same.

yes, you can do both.

the color of the picture that i received from my brother has faded somewhat.
(here "that" refers to "picture", which is your "Y")

the picture of my nieces that i received from my brother is cute.
(here "that" refers to "picture (of my nieces)", which is your "X (of Y)")

lunarpower wrote:

mmslf75 wrote:#Q1
Can Which" modify the immediately preceding noun only ?
OR
Is it that if i have a sentence of the form "A of B,which".. The "which" may refer to either A or B depending on the context ?

from what we've seen, the gmat is actually pretty consistent on this issue.

what we've seen, so far, is:

the gmat tends to write sentences in which "which" stands for the ELIGIBLE noun that's closest to the comma.
by "eligible", i mean that the noun has to AGREE IN TERMS OF SINGULAR/PLURAL with the FOLLOWING VERB.

here's an example:

the box of nails, which is on the counter, is to be used on this project.

in this case, "which" CANNOT refer to "nails", since the verb "is" is singular. therefore, the nearest eligible noun is "box (of nails)". so, "which" unambiguously stands for that.

in our observation, the gmat has been VERY good about this.
whenever i've seen a "which" that refers to "X of Y" rather than just Y, it has ALWAYS been the case that X was singular and Y was plural (or X was plural and Y was singular), and the verb had a form that matched X and didn't match Y.

hope that helps.