Sentence Correction

Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make it any more likely for plants to become an invasive or persistent weed, according to a decade-long study published in the journal Nature.

A) Same
B) because it is genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
C) being genetically engineered does not make it any more likely that plants will
D) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
E) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely that it will become


OA is[spoiler] D[/spoiler]

My only question is about B. B is wrong because subject of the sentence is "subordinate clause" which is incorrect.
Explanation by Ron :
You cannot use ANY clause starting with a conjunction (either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction).

Could someone please confirm whether it is true for usage of that also ? I thought that when introduces a clause a a subordinator c, that clause can be used as a subject. There is a question in OG that uses "that" subordinate clause.

I tried PM to RON but sending messages is a mystery ,for message remains in the outbox and is never shown as sent .

GMATMadeEasy wrote:Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make it any more likely for plants to become an invasive or persistent weed, according to a decade-long study published in the journal Nature.

A) Same
B) because it is genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
C) being genetically engineered does not make it any more likely that plants will
D) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
E) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely that it will become


OA is[spoiler] D[/spoiler]

My only question is about B. B is wrong because subject of the sentence is "subordinate clause" which is incorrect.
Explanation by Ron :
You cannot use ANY clause starting with a conjunction (either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction).

Could someone please confirm whether it is true for usage of that also ? I thought that when introduces a clause a a subordinator c, that clause can be used as a subject. There is a question in OG that uses "that" subordinate clause.

I tried PM to RON but sending messages is a mystery ,for message remains in the outbox and is never shown as sent .

B can't stand on its own.


Because +(clause) --> Dependent Clause (D.C)/ Subordinate clause


DC , IC (indepednet clause) then it is correct.

DC, according.. --> not correct



Because X killed Y, Z is looking for X --> correct format
Because X killed Y, According to Z --> not correct


choice D has " main subject" and " verb" it is IC

Thanks.

But Can a dependent clause startting with THAT be subject of a clause ?

Yes, such construction is called a "that-clause", which actually isn't a dependent clause. That-clause is a clause that can fill the subject role or the object role of a sentence, and it is different than the relative clause that is introduced by "that", as in my usage of "that is introduced...".

Here's an example of a that-clause that fills in the subject noun phrase slot.

"That business students make better entrepreneurs is an unsound statement."

Often you'll see a different construction of that-clause (with a placeholder it), in which that-clause is moved to the back of the sentence as the object, but nevertheless, it remains as a grammatical subject.

"It is an unsound statement that business students make better entrepreneurs."

@uwhusky -> I fully agree with you . THAT clause can fill a noun slot and that noun can play role of subject of course.

And that's why I have the confusion.

From RON's explanation when I read that subordinate clause can not be used as subject. THAT perfectly makes a coordinate conjuction.

I am sure I am misinterpreting something. I want to clarly understand the rule provided by RON . Please help.

GMATMadeEasy wrote:Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make it any more likely for plants to become an invasive or persistent weed, according to a decade-long study published in the journal Nature.

A) Same
B) because it is genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
C) being genetically engineered does not make it any more likely that plants will
D) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
E) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely that it will become


OA is[spoiler] D[/spoiler]

My only question is about B. B is wrong because subject of the sentence is "subordinate clause" which is incorrect.
Explanation by Ron :
You cannot use ANY clause starting with a conjunction (either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction).

Could someone please confirm whether it is true for usage of that also ? I thought that when introduces a clause a a subordinator c, that clause can be used as a subject. There is a question in OG that uses "that" subordinate clause.

I tried PM to RON but sending messages is a mystery ,for message remains in the outbox and is never shown as sent .

Two things:

1. Subordinate Clause CAN act as NOUN and finally CAN work as the subject of a verb:

Example:

Because it is funny does not mean that it is not serious.
That he is an engineer is a well known fact.
What he says is really true.

==All these sentences are correct, and subordinate clauses have been used as NOUNs and finally as the subjects of verbs.

What is the actual deal in this sentence:

Simply because they are genetically engineered does not make it any more likely for plants to become an invasive or persistent weed, according to a decade-long study published in the journal Nature.

Look at the words after "become"

"an invasive or persistent weed"

==> Since the word "an weed" is in singular form, its reference MUST be in singular.

we CAN NOT say, "Plants will be treated as an weed"

Rather we should say, "A plant can be treated as an weed if it is not desired."

So, look the options for this clue.

We can eliminate the options A and C for using "plants" that does not match with the an..weed.

(A) because they are genetically engineered does not make it any more likely for plants to
(B) because it is genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
(C) being genetically engineered does not make it any more likely that plants will
(D) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely to
(E) being genetically engineered does not make a plant any more likely that it will become

The option B can be eliminated for using "it" because It has more than one possible references.

E can be eliminated for using "become" ---it reads as "become become"

Only option D is free from obvious grammar errors.

Hope that helps.

Perfect.

I see what your confusion is. That-clause and a subordinate clause are two completely different elements of grammar; "that" in that-clause has no purpose other than to introduce that-clause as a noun object, whereas relative pronoun "that" in a subordinate clause replaces an actual noun object.

Use my previous example:

"That business students make better entrepreneurs is an unsound statement."

If I remove "that", the sentence becomes somewhat confusing, if not ungrammatical, structure. So the way I view that-clause is almost like it puts a clause in quotation marks, so you know exactly what the object of discussion is.

uwhusky wrote:I see what your confusion is. That-clause and a subordinate clause are two completely different elements of grammar; "that" in that-clause has no purpose other than to introduce that-clause as a noun object, whereas relative pronoun "that" in a subordinate clause replaces an actual noun object.

Use my previous example:

"That business students make better entrepreneurs is an unsound statement."

If I remove "that", the sentence becomes somewhat confusing, if not ungrammatical, structure. So the way I view that-clause is almost like it puts a clause in quotation marks, so you know exactly what the object of discussion is.

There is no difference between your sentence ans the mine.

See the og11 sc no. 50 explanation. I cannot copy that for you because my copy paste from pdf file does not work.

Thanks.

gmat_perfect wrote: There is no difference between your sentence ans the mine.

See the og11 sc no. 50 explanation. I cannot copy that for you because my copy paste from pdf file does not work.

Thanks.

What do you mean? I wasn't comparing our sentences. I don't have OG11, so you have to be more specific on what question that is.

uwhusky wrote:

gmat_perfect wrote: There is no difference between your sentence ans the mine.

See the og11 sc no. 50 explanation. I cannot copy that for you because my copy paste from pdf file does not work.

Thanks.

What do you mean? I wasn't comparing our sentences. I don't have OG11, so you have to be more specific on what question that is.

Here is the sentence:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/that-clause-t65146.html

Man, I am not debating with you. I was just saying that the sentence mentioned by you as an example is structurally same with the sentence mentioned by me.

Have a good day.

In am just giving the gist of the OG11 explanation:

Subordinate clause starting with that can be used as the subject, but there may have some problems as it is in this sentence. Meaning that by using "that clause at the beginning of the sentence", the writer of the sentence has made an error in this sentence. Specially OG says "that...............that" is NOT correct usage.

Hope you got my point.

I was responding to your direct quote to my previous post, so I was asking for clarification on what you meant. Not trying to start a debate, but rather to have a discussion on the concept.

In your example of a specific question, the correct answer D also utilizes "that-clause", but it extraposed that-clause using placeholder it for stylistic purpose. So I am not sure if I understand what you meant by the two elements being one of the same, because my understanding of subordinate clause is that it uses a specific noun as the subject, whereas that-clause itself is a noun object.

Ok, I just picked up the book again and apparently "subordinate clause" includes that-clause as well, so technically they're within the same category, although they function differently.

Here's an excerpt from the book Doing Grammar:

"Chinese cooks claim that snake meats keeps you warm in the winter." -example of a that-clause as noun clause.

"Chinese cooks prepare snake-meat dishes that keep you warm in winter." -example of a relative clause.

Further evidence of that-clause as a noun object can be seen when you turn the sentence above into a passive voice sentence.

"That snake meats keep you warm in winter is claimed by Chinese cooks."

In the example of relative clause, you cannot do the same, because a relative clause is NOT the same as a noun clause. In the relative clause example, it can be broken down into two sentences:

"Chinese cooks prepare snake-meat dishes."

"Snake-meat dishes keep you warm in winter."

I might be doing a poor job of explaining, but I hope I make it clear that the two constructions are different.

uwhusky wrote:Ok, I just picked up the book again and apparently "subordinate clause" includes that-clause as well, so technically they're within the same category, although they function differently.

Here's an excerpt from the book Doing Grammar:

"Chinese cooks claim that snake meats keeps you warm in the winter." -example of a that-clause as noun clause.

"Chinese cooks prepare snake-meat dishes that keep you warm in winter." -example of a relative clause.

Further evidence of that-clause as a noun object can be seen when you turn the sentence above into a passive voice sentence.

"That snake meats keep you warm in winter is claimed by Chinese cooks."

In the example of relative clause, you cannot do the same, because a relative clause is NOT the same as a noun clause. In the relative clause example, it can be broken down into two sentences:

"Chinese cooks prepare snake-meat dishes."

"Snake-meat dishes keep you warm in winter."

I might be doing a poor job of explaining, but I hope I make it clear that the two constructions are different.

Yes, I got it.

Thanks.

Any more thoughts on this ?

I have PMed Ron to put his comments on this.