Since the 1920s, a family of artists have made their home at Shearwater, a complex overlooking Mississippi's Biloxi Bay.
(1)
Since the 1920s, a family of artists have made
(2)
Since 1920, a family of artists has made
(3)
Since the 1920s, a family of artists has made
(4)
In the 1920s, a family of artists has made
(5)
In the 1920s, a family of artists have made
since the 1920s or since 1920
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 375 times
- Followed by:53 members
Hi,
since the 1920s and since 1920 are both valid. I have seen similar usage in a GMAT Prep SC question. So, that is enough to say it is accepted by GMAC. However, I have other doubts in this question. Is this from an authentic source or pasted from an article? I have googled this and found the following:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4853507
I am confused about the usage because plural verb 'have' in this source. It doesn't agree with the subject family, which I believe is singular as it is a collective noun.
since the 1920s and since 1920 are both valid. I have seen similar usage in a GMAT Prep SC question. So, that is enough to say it is accepted by GMAC. However, I have other doubts in this question. Is this from an authentic source or pasted from an article? I have googled this and found the following:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4853507
I am confused about the usage because plural verb 'have' in this source. It doesn't agree with the subject family, which I believe is singular as it is a collective noun.
Last edited by Frankenstein on Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers!
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 375 times
- Followed by:53 members
Okay...Any idea what the OA is? I am sending PM to Master GMAT expert anyway.mundasingh123 wrote:Source : masterGmat Free Sim Test
Cheers!
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
No need . The OA is C . The Explanation is that B changes the original meaningFrankenstein wrote:Okay...Any idea what the OA is? I am sending PM to Master GMAT expert anyway.mundasingh123 wrote:Source : masterGmat Free Sim Test
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 375 times
- Followed by:53 members
I am not worried about the underlined part. Of course, B changes the meaning. I have posted him regarding the usage of 'their'. I am not too sure about it.mundasingh123 wrote:No need . The OA is C . The Explanation is that B changes the original meaningFrankenstein wrote:Okay...Any idea what the OA is? I am sending PM to Master GMAT expert anyway.mundasingh123 wrote:Source : masterGmat Free Sim Test
Edit: I am clear about the usage of 'their'. So, requested him not to respond.
Last edited by Frankenstein on Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Cheers!
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
- Thanked: 114 times
- Followed by:12 members
Hi,Frankenstein wrote:Hi,
since the 1920s and since 1920 are both valid. I have seen similar usage in a GMAT Prep SC question. So, that is enough to say it is accepted by GMAC. However, I have other doubts in this question. Is this from an authentic source or pasted from an article? So, I have googled this and found the following:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4853507
I am confused about the usage because plural verb 'have'. It doesn't agree with the subject family, which I believe is singular as it is a collective noun. Can 'family' be plural as well? Similarly, the non-underlined portion has their. I don't think it can refer to artists. I guess it can only refer to family, which is again singular.
Expert opinions are appreciated!
I thought 1920 better than 1920s, however, since you mentioned that you have seen similar usage in GMATPrep - could you pls share some more insight into such usage. How 1920 and 1920s are different/same and how B and C changes the meaning.
regarding 'their' - IMO their, a pronoun, can refer to a noun inside a prepositional phrase ie artists here
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 375 times
- Followed by:53 members
Hi,patanjali.purpose wrote: Hi,
I thought 1920 better than 1920s, however, since you mentioned that you have seen similar usage in GMATPrep - could you pls share some more insight into such usage. How 1920 and 1920s are different/same and how B and C changes the meaning.
Original sentence says since the 1920s, which is a valid usage. So, we should preserve the meaning of it. 1920s means some unclear time between 1920-1930(more or less encapsulating the decade. it could be 1921,1922...so on). In B, usage of 1920 means you are making it strictly year of 1920(specific). That is what I mean by change in meaning. C doesn't change meaning. It corrects the verb have to has(singular).
Yup, even I feel the same. But, I was not 100% sure so just wanted someone to confirm this because I regularly see constructions such as 'a group of players showing their skills'. I just wanted a confirmation of this. Now that I feel it is valid, I will edit that part so that others don't get confused.regarding 'their' - IMO their, a pronoun, can refer to a noun inside a prepositional phrase ie artists here
Cheers!
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise