@ Bill,

thanks for the response.
I have a couple of more questions

1. How do you make out (1) which subject forms are compound and which are not? (2) which forms of compound subjects use plural form and which use singular form?

2. Can you comment on the that rule? My understanding is as follows
--> when 'that follows a noun without any comma'... the 'that' refers to the immediate preceding noun
--> if there is a comma before 'that'... then the 'that' could refer to the action in the preceding clause or some subject in the preceding clause

@ Bill,

thanks for the response.
I have a couple of more questions

1. How do you make out (1) which subject forms are compound and which are not? (2) which forms of compound subjects use plural form and which use singular form?

2. Can you comment on the that rule? My understanding is as follows
--> when 'that follows a noun without any comma'... the 'that' refers to the immediate preceding noun
--> if there is a comma before 'that'... then the 'that' could refer to the action in the preceding clause or some subject in the preceding clause

namans wrote:@ Bill,

thanks for the response.
I have a couple of more questions

1. How do you make out (1) which subject forms are compound and which are not? (2) which forms of compound subjects use plural form and which use singular form?

"And" is a big giveaway. When you see it used to link two nouns, then it counts as a plural subject. The exception that you brought up ("the chairman and CEO" being the same person) is not something I recall seeing on an official question.

2. Can you comment on the that rule? My understanding is as follows
--> when 'that follows a noun without any comma'... the 'that' refers to the immediate preceding noun

This makes sense, and I agree with it. It's used as a relative pronoun, so it should refer to the preceding noun.

--> if there is a comma before 'that'... then the 'that' could refer to the action in the preceding clause or some subject in the preceding clause

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you have an example?

lunarpower wrote: In general:
* "x and y" can be singular-but only if you have positive proof that it is so.
* If there's no proof otherwise, it's safe to assume that "x and y" is plural.

Thanks Ron! It's great to know this.

lunarpower wrote:

Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:The exception that you brought up ("the chairman and CEO" being the same person) is not something I recall seeing on an official question.

The official problems have tested "x and y" as a singular noun before, but never without proof.

E.g., OG13 #85, in which "owning and living..." is a singular noun.
* It's actually essential to recognize that "owning and living" is singular. If you assume by default that it's plural because of the "and", you'll eliminate the correct answer (in which "it" stands for this noun).
* The problem contains proof that "owning and living" is singular, in the form of the verb "is" (in the non-underlined part).

In general:
* "x and y" can be singular-but only if you have positive proof that it is so.
* If there's no proof otherwise, it's safe to assume that "x and y" is plural.

Good catch. That's one I hadn't seen in a while.

--> if there is a comma before 'that'... then the 'that' could refer to the action in the preceding clause or some subject in the preceding clause

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you have an example?

I am not sure if this is the best eg... say a parallel structure:
A knows that B is faster than C, that C is faster than D, and that D is faster than E

Here the that does not necessarily refer to the immediate preceding noun, but refers to A.

Is the understanding correct?

In that case, you have parallel form (A knows that..., that..., and that...) so the relationship is clear.

maihuna wrote:For many revisionist historians, Christopher Columbus has come to Personify devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that has decimated native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.

A. devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that has decimated native peoples of the Western Hemisphere
B. devastation and enslavement in the name of progress by which native peoples of the Western Hemisphere have been
decimated
C. devastating and enslaving in the name of progress those native peoples of the Western Hemisphere that have been decimated
D. devastating and enslaving those native peoples of the Western hemisphere which in the name of progress are decimated.
E. the devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that have decimated the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
[spoiler]Answer:A/E[/spoiler]

Apologies for bumping up this thread. I understand that E is the best fit among the options, but what would be the appropriate reason to eliminate B? As per my understanding, B is a legitimate sentence, albeit in passive form, and given that E presents the answer in active form, it is the correct answer (I may most certainly be wrong.) Does that make sense?

Request the experts to shed light on this.
Thanks a lot!

infromaniac wrote:

maihuna wrote:For many revisionist historians, Christopher Columbus has come to Personify devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that has decimated native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.

A. devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that has decimated native peoples of the Western Hemisphere
B. devastation and enslavement in the name of progress by which native peoples of the Western Hemisphere have been
decimated
C. devastating and enslaving in the name of progress those native peoples of the Western Hemisphere that have been decimated
D. devastating and enslaving those native peoples of the Western hemisphere which in the name of progress are decimated.
E. the devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that have decimated the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
[spoiler]Answer:A/E[/spoiler]

Apologies for bumping up this thread. I understand that E is the best fit among the options, but what would be the appropriate reason to eliminate B? As per my understanding, B is a legitimate sentence, albeit in passive form, and given that E presents the answer in active form, it is the correct answer (I may most certainly be wrong.) Does that make sense?

Request the experts to shed light on this.
Thanks a lot!

I am no expert but will try to explain you.
B says in the name of progress by which---as we know which refers to nearest noun or I say preceding noun most of the times, so here the sentence give meaning that progress decimated people, and this is wrong meaning because progress can't decimate.

between B and E ,i chose E. I do not think the is unnecessary in E. What is OA?

src_saurav wrote:between B and E ,i chose E. I do not think the is unnecessary in E. What is OA?

I posted an explanation, along with the OA, here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/sc-that-vers ... 81349.html

lunarpower wrote:

Kajiabeat wrote:same confusion!

the first major difference between A and E are two "the" ---before"devastation and enslavement" and before"native peoples", any difference in meaning?

the second difference is the "have/has" used for the "that" clause, which decide what part this clause is modifying. To be honest, I see both way are OK. How can we make judgement here?

Thank you for any instructors to step in(is "step in" here right?).

hi --

the "a/an/the" difference has never been explicitly tested on the gmat -- and is almost impossibly difficult for non-native speakers to understand fully -- so you shouldn't worry about that difference.

choice (a) is incorrect because of the singular verb "has", whose only legitimate antecedent is "progress". that doesn't make sense; progress is not what decimated native peoples. the native peoples were decimated by devastation and enslavement, so you need a plural verb.

Hi Ron, Hope you are well. Ron, I need to have your attention!
Ron, I think, GMAC has used the article "the" in option E correctly. If we remove "the'' from option E, it will not work perfectly because of my following analogy....
Example: I know THE man who came here yesterday.
In this example, I'm talking about a specific guy who came here JUST yesterday. There are many people who come in my house regularly. But, yesterday JUST one guy comes. So, I think, we should use the definite article THE in this regard. If I say, I know man who came here yesterday. It'll not work perfectly.

In option A and E,
the word THAT indicate something, which has been occurred definitely and/or specifically by THE devastation and enslavement. Ron, is my understanding correct? I wish to have your response.Thanks....