GMAT Modifiers

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:22 am
gmat740 wrote: It can mean

1. Fossils of the arm of sloth
2. Sloth.

So this makes the situation confusing.
But IMO it cannot refer to fossils....fossils is plural....and it cannot refer to arm....because arm cannot be mammal...

Please tell what I am missing here.

User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:42 pm
Location: Paris, France
Thanked: 71 times
Followed by:17 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmat740 » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:57 am
Fossils of the arm of sloth

Players of the Team

So, we talk about a collection of fossils of the arm.

I hope now it is clear

Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:43 am
Agree with D

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:23 pm
goelmohit2002 wrote:
gmat740 wrote: It can mean

1. Fossils of the arm of sloth
2. Sloth.

So this makes the situation confusing.
But IMO it cannot refer to fossils....fossils is plural....and it cannot refer to arm....because arm cannot be mammal...

Please tell what I am missing here.
fossil cant be a mammal. only the sloth can. "making it the earliest known mammal"=>it is the earliest known mammal=>"it" is in subjective case.
"fossils of sloth". sloth is in objective case as it is after a preposition "of". "it" cannot refer to sloth in the sentence as is (though it ideally should). "it" refers to fossils which does not make sense as fossils cannot be a mammal.
D clears the confusion by bringing in "sloth" in place of "it"
also A says: the fossils ...made itself the earliest known mammal. illogical

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:48 am
Thanked: 1 times

by varundaga05 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:54 am
Th e subject of the sentence is the plural fossils,
not sloth, and therefore requires a plural verb. It
therefore does not have a singular antecedent.
To clarify the identifi cation of the oldest known
mammal, the noun the sloth must be explicitly
identifi ed.

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:41 pm

by Shalabh7 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:35 am
Option D cannot be correct because 'found in ' without were/was preceding it, ends up meaning that fossils were found there throughout the year. Also, have been is wrong.

In option C this is singular and so can only refer to a singular noun which happens to be sloth. But, I agree it would have been better if they would have used ' the sloth'. However, Option C is the best option.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:36 pm

by Pal22 » Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:00 am
Dear Sir/Madam, how is 'found in Puerto Rico in 1981' modifying 'Fossils' and not 'the arm of a sloth' or even 'sloth'?

In such sentences (type X of Y, modifier) how can we judge which noun is getting modified?

Please suggest.