Sentence Correction

GMATGuruNY wrote:

avik.ch wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply BLOOD THAT IS CONTANIMATED WITH THE VIRUS.

I rejected C as I found the nation's blood supply blood to be awkward.

As I can understand : nation's blood supply - noun phrase, how can two noun be placed together.

Does't a comma is required ?

Please help !!

No comma is required. Here's the relevant part of C:

...helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus.

The construction here is GERUND + ADVERB + DIRECT OBJECT.

Eliminating is a gerund: a verb functioning as a noun.
More specifically, eliminating serves as the OBJECT OF THE PREPOSITION in:
IN WHAT area has the new test proved helpful?
It has proved helpful in ELIMINATING.

From the nation's blood supply is an ADVERB modifying eliminating.
FROM WHERE is the new test eliminating?
It is eliminating FROM THE NATION'S BLOOD SUPPLY.

Blood that is contanimated with the virus is the DIRECT OBJECT of eliminating.
WHAT exactly is the new test eliminating from the nation's blood supply?
It is eliminating from the nation's blood supply BLOOD THAT IS CONTAMINATED WITH THE VIRUS.

Thanks a lot for the prompt reply.

But one doubt.

.. has proved helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus.

"in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus" - adverb of result for the main verb ( has proved)

Now parsing the adverb of result:

From the nation's blood supply : adverb of source for the verb ( in noun form ) - "eliminating"
direct object : blood that is contaminated with the virus.

Is it possible to place the adverb after the verb, as the slot after the verb is taken by adverb only when the verb is of intransitive type.

I met Joe in 2011. -- But,
I met in 2011 Joe. -- here we are moving the adverb of time after the main verb. Is this a correct sentence ?

Please help !!

avik.ch wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

avik.ch wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply BLOOD THAT IS CONTANIMATED WITH THE VIRUS.

I rejected C as I found the nation's blood supply blood to be awkward.

As I can understand : nation's blood supply - noun phrase, how can two noun be placed together.

Does't a comma is required ?

Please help !!

No comma is required. Here's the relevant part of C:

...helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus.

The construction here is GERUND + ADVERB + DIRECT OBJECT.

Eliminating is a gerund: a verb functioning as a noun.
More specifically, eliminating serves as the OBJECT OF THE PREPOSITION in:
IN WHAT area has the new test proved helpful?
It has proved helpful in ELIMINATING.

From the nation's blood supply is an ADVERB modifying eliminating.
FROM WHERE is the new test eliminating?
It is eliminating FROM THE NATION'S BLOOD SUPPLY.

Blood that is contanimated with the virus is the DIRECT OBJECT of eliminating.
WHAT exactly is the new test eliminating from the nation's blood supply?
It is eliminating from the nation's blood supply BLOOD THAT IS CONTAMINATED WITH THE VIRUS.

Thanks a lot for the prompt reply.

But one doubt.

.. has proved helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus.

"in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus" - adverb of result for the main verb ( has proved)

Now parsing the adverb of result:

From the nation's blood supply : adverb of source for the verb ( in noun form ) - "eliminating"
direct object : blood that is contaminated with the virus.

Is it possible to place the adverb after the verb, as the slot after the verb is taken by adverb only when the verb is of intransitive type.

I met Joe in 2011. -- But,
I met in 2011 Joe. -- here we are moving the adverb of time after the main verb. Is this a correct sentence ?

Please help !!

VERB + DIRECT OBJECT + ADVERBIAL MODIFIER is typical when the direct object is relatively simple:
Mary PLACED all of the cookies ON THE TABLE.
Here, it is clear that ON THE TABLE is where Mary PLACED the cookies.

But when the direct object is more complex, confusion can arise:
Mary placed all of the cookies that John HAD BAKED ON THE TABLE.
Here, a reader might think that ON THE TABLE is where John HAD BAKED the cookies.

One way to avoid such confusion is to position the adverbial modifier right after the verb:
Mary PLACED ON THE TABLE all of the cookies that John had baked.

A few take-aways:

-- It must clear what a modifier is modifying.
-- A modifier should be as close as possible to what it's modifying.
-- When a modifier switches position in the answer choices, look for an answer choice that positions the modifier as close as possible to what it's modifying.

gmatguru,
while I understand your complete explanation why C is the OA, but what I find awkward (and perhaps crappy as well) is the structure in the OA - we know GMAT is the boss, but I doubt, how often we use such structure in real-life !!

however, I've a quick question on the structure in A:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Please note that, in A, the commas surrounding contanimated with the virus imply that the modifier is NON-ESSENTIAL and can be removed without altering the basic meaning of the sentence. Without the modifier, A conveys the same strange meaning as B and E: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in ELIMINATING BLOOD from the nation's blood supply.

while no issue in understanding this analysis, just curious to know why we can't interpret the commas surrounding contanimated with the virus as follows --

• * the FIRST comma is the one before Verb-ed modifier "contanimated", thus it seems to imply that the blood is contaminated with the virus.
  
  * the SECOND comma is used to imply that virus is NOT related to from the nation's blood supply -- this comma simply separates virus from the phrase in BLUE.

why such interpretation will be incorrect ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:gmatguru,
while I understand your complete explanation why C is the OA, but what I find awkward (and perhaps crappy as well) is the structure in the OA - we know GMAT is the boss, but I doubt, how often we use such structure in real-life !!

Awkwardness is not a sufficient reason to eliminate an answer choice.
The OA conveys the intended meaning clearly and correctly.
Reread the OA and try to understand why it is NOT considered awkward.

however, I've a quick question on the structure in A:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Please note that, in A, the commas surrounding contanimated with the virus imply that the modifier is NON-ESSENTIAL and can be removed without altering the basic meaning of the sentence. Without the modifier, A conveys the same strange meaning as B and E: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in ELIMINATING BLOOD from the nation's blood supply.

while no issue in understanding this analysis, just curious to know why we can't interpret the commas surrounding contanimated with the virus as follows --

• * the FIRST comma is the one before Verb-ed modifier "contanimated", thus it seems to imply that the blood is contaminated with the virus.
  
  * the SECOND comma is used to imply that virus is NOT related to from the nation's blood supply -- this comma simply separates virus from the phrase in BLUE.

why such interpretation will be incorrect ?

The issue here is not grammar but MEANING.

OA: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating...blood that is contaminated with the virus.
Conveyed meaning:
A new test for AIDS is helping to eliminate a SPECIFIC TYPE of blood: blood THAT IS CONTAMINATED WITH THE VIRUS.
This meaning is logical.

COMMA + VERBed is essentially a which-modifier with the pronoun which omitted.
A: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating blood, [which has been] contaminated with the virus.
The words in brackets are omitted but implied.
Conveyed meaning:
ALL blood has been contaminated with the virus.
For this reason, a new test for AIDS is helping to eliminate ALL blood from the blood supply.
This meaning is illogical.
Clearly, ALL blood is not being eliminated from the blood supply; only CONTAMINATED blood is being removed.
Eliminate A.

GMATGuruNY wrote: COMMA + VERBed is essentially a which-modifier with the pronoun which omitted.

this is a completely new insight...! is it always true in GMAT SC ?

so, you're essentially saying that since function/role of a COMMA + VERBed-modifier is similar to that of a which-modifier, sense in option A is too broad to consider correct. thus, meaning of A becomes illogical.

did I get you right ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:But when the direct object is more complex, confusion can arise:
Mary placed all of the cookies that John BAKED ON THE TABLE.
Here, a reader might think that ON THE TABLE is where John BAKED the cookies.

One way to avoid such confusion is to position the adverbial modifier right after the verb:
Mary PLACED ON THE TABLE all of the cookies that John baked.

Mary PLACED all of the cookies ON THE TABLE that John baked.

this sentence should be correct, I guess.

reason: since it's nonsensical to consider that John baked THE TABLE, it's evident that THAT-modifier here refers to the cookies , but NOT to THE TABLE.

right ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ruplun wrote:A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating blood, contaminated with the virus, from the nation's blood supply.
(A) in eliminating blood, contaminated with the virus, from the nation's blood supply
(B) in eliminating blood from the nation's blood supply that is contaminated with the virus
(C) in eliminating from the nation's blood supply blood that is contaminated with the virus
(D) to eliminate blood that is contaminated with the virus from the nation's blood supply
(E) to eliminate blood from the nation's blood supply that is contaminated with the virus
Please explain...

A, B, E all imply that the purpose of the test is to ELIMINATE BLOOD. Not quite. The purpose of the test is not to eliminate ALL blood but only the portion CONTAMINATED WITH THE VIRUS. Eliminate A, B and E.

D implies that the virus is FROM THE NATION'S BLOOD SUPPLY. The intended meaning is that virus has been introduced INTO the blood supply and that the new test has proved helpful in eliminating it. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

Only C makes the intended meaning clear: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating from the nation's blood supply BLOOD THAT IS CONTANIMATED WITH THE VIRUS.

Please note that, in A, the commas surrounding contanimated with the virus imply that the modifier is NON-ESSENTIAL and can be removed without altering the basic meaning of the sentence. Without the modifier, A conveys the same strange meaning as B and E: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in ELIMINATING BLOOD from the nation's blood supply.

Dear Mitch,

Which is idiomatic: 'helpful to' or 'helpful in' or both?

Thanks

gmatguru,
any update on my above concerns ?

please see these two links for your quick reference:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/aids-t107788-15.html#793199
and
https://www.beatthegmat.com/aids-t107788-15.html#793200

Mo2men wrote:Dear Mitch,

Which is idiomatic: 'helpful to' or 'helpful in' or both?

Thanks

D and E: A new test has proved helpful to eliminate blood.
The phrase in red unidiomatic.
Correct: A new test has proved helpful IN ELIMINATING blood.

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: COMMA + VERBed is essentially a which-modifier with the pronoun which omitted.

this is a completely new insight...! is it always true in GMAT SC ?

Yes.

so, you're essentially saying that since function/role of a COMMA + VERBed-modifier is similar to that of a which-modifier, sense in option A is too broad to consider correct. thus, meaning of A becomes illogical.

did I get you right ?

Correct!

ngk4mba3236 wrote: Mary PLACED all of the cookies ON THE TABLE that John baked.

this sentence should be correct, I guess.

reason: since it's nonsensical to consider that John baked THE TABLE, it's evident that THAT-modifier here refers to the cookies , but NOT to THE TABLE.

right ?

The sentence above is not valid.
A modifier should be AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to what it modifies.
Incorrect:
Mary placed all of the cookies on the table that John had baked.
Here, the prepositional phrase in red is intended to modify the verb in red, while the that-clause in blue is intended to modify the noun in blue.
It is illogical to position these modifiers so far from their intended referents.
Because of the illogical placement, that John had baked seems to refer to table, even though the intended referent is clearly cookies.
Correct:
Mary placed on the table all of the cookies that John had baked.
Here, the two colored modifiers are as close as possible to their intended referents.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

so, you're essentially saying that since function/role of a COMMA + VERBed-modifier is similar to that of a which-modifier, sense in option A is too broad to consider correct. thus, meaning of A becomes illogical.

did I get you right ?

Correct!

what NO COMMA + VERBed will be similar to in function ? will it be similar to that-modifier ?

if option A were: A new test for AIDS has proved helpful in eliminating blood contaminated with the virus, from the nation's blood supply -- would it be correct as far as intended meaning of this SC is concerned ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ngk4mba3236 wrote: Mary PLACED all of the cookies ON THE TABLE that John baked.

this sentence should be correct, I guess.

reason: since it's nonsensical to consider that John baked THE TABLE, it's evident that THAT-modifier here refers to the cookies , but NOT to THE TABLE.

right ?

The sentence above is not valid.
A modifier should be AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to what it modifies.
Incorrect:
Mary placed all of the cookies on the table that John had baked.
Here, the prepositional phrase in red is intended to modify the verb in red, while the that-clause in blue is intended to modify the noun in blue.
It is illogical to position these modifiers so far from their intended referents.
Because of the illogical placement, that John had baked seems to refer to table, even though the intended referent is clearly cookies.
Correct:
Mary placed on the table all of the cookies that John had baked.
Here, the two colored modifiers are as close as possible to their intended referents.

ok. I get you here...but isn't it true in GMAT SC that sometimes that-modifier refers to a far away NOUN (or NOUN-phrase) ?

btw, in my example mentioned in the above quote, how we can even consider structurally that that John had baked seems to refer to table -- it's completely non-sensical, I think, because one can't bake a table...!!

please clarify!

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ngk4mba3236 wrote: Mary PLACED all of the cookies ON THE TABLE that John baked.

this sentence should be correct, I guess.

reason: since it's nonsensical to consider that John baked THE TABLE, it's evident that THAT-modifier here refers to the cookies , but NOT to THE TABLE.

right ?

The sentence above is not valid.
A modifier should be AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to what it modifies.
Incorrect:
Mary placed all of the cookies on the table that John had baked.
Here, the prepositional phrase in red is intended to modify the verb in red, while the that-clause in blue is intended to modify the noun in blue.
It is illogical to position these modifiers so far from their intended referents.
Because of the illogical placement, that John had baked seems to refer to table, even though the intended referent is clearly cookies.
Correct:
Mary placed on the table all of the cookies that John had baked.
Here, the two colored modifiers are as close as possible to their intended referents.

ok. I get you here...but isn't it true in GMAT SC that sometimes that-modifier refers to a far away NOUN (or NOUN-phrase) ?

btw, in my example mentioned in the above quote, how we can even consider structurally that that John had baked seems to refer to table -- it's completely non-sensical, I think, because one can't bake a table...!!

please clarify!

There are rules that govern when a that-modifier may be separated from its intended referent.
One such rule -- a rule that we don't need to know for the GMAT -- is that an adverbial prepositional phrase cannot separate a that-modifier from its intended referent.
Incorrect:
Mary placed all of the cookies on the table that John had baked.
Here, on the table -- an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying placed -- incorrectly separates the that-modifier in red from its intended referent (cookies).
As a result, the that-modifier in red seems to modify not the cookies but the table, implying a nonsensical meaning: that THE TABLE had been baked by John.

It is not necessary for a test-taker to know the rules that will allow a that-modifier to be separated from its intended referent.
What matters on the GMAT is the following:
A that-modifier must touch its intended referent unless it is not POSSIBLE for the that-modifier to do so.
For an official example, check here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/sc-after-mor ... 81393.html
In my third post, I explain why the that-modifier in the OA cannot touch its intended referent.

GMATGuruNY wrote:What matters on the GMAT is the following:
A that-modifier must touch its intended referent unless it is not POSSIBLE for the that-modifier to do so.
For an official example, check here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/sc-after-mor ... 81393.html
In my third post, I explain why the that-modifier in the OA cannot touch its intended referent.

apart from this one, in GMAT SC, are there any other exceptions in which that-modifier will not touch its intended referent ?