Sentence Correction

Stacey Koprince wrote:Ok, thanks for the source. Let's use some different sentences to examine the principle.

The original sentence:

The use of GMAT books is based on the assumption that studying produces hormones in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physical responses. (Yes, I know the meaning of the sentence is kind of amusing - I'm trying to match some singular and plural stuff in the original sentence!)

The "in turn" bit is just a little modifier tossed in to break up the sentence a bit and confuse you. Ignore it!

The use of GMAT books is based on the assumption that studying produces hormones in an individual that create unconscious physical responses.

Core:
The use <of X> is based on the assumption that studying produces <Y>.

Modifier Y:
hormones <in A> that create <Z> responses

No problems with core or modifier so far. I assume that the people who chose C thought there was something wrong with A, so let me know what you thought was wrong.

Now, adapting our new sentence for choice C:

The use of GMAT books is based on the assumption that studying produces hormones in an individual creating, in turn, unconscious physical responses.

Core:
The use <of X> is based on the assumption that studying produces <Y>.

Modifier Y:
hormones <in an individual creating responses?>

Still no problem in the core. That modifier, though... that's messy. There's no comma between "individual" and "creating" and that's a big problem. Try this phrase:
"stress in an individual studying hard for the GMAT"

What does that "studying hard for the GMAT" refer to? In this sentence, it's modifying the individual - and that makes sense.

But what about our example above? It's ambiguous here - "individual" is a candidate for the noun, because an individual can create unconscious responses... and so can the hormones... and, hey, so can studying! Which is it? Ambiguity = bad.

Note that there is no ambiguity in A, because the conjugated verb "create" can match only with a plural subject, so it must match with the plural "hormones." Now we know that it's definitely the hormones creating the responses.

Stacey Koprince wrote:If you insert a comma before the word "creating," then yes, it turns into a "comma -ing" modifier, which is an adverbial modifier. This modifier should modify the entire preceding clause - the full meaning, not just the subject.

The full meaning is "studying produces hormones (in someone)."

Studying produces hormones, creating unconscious physical responses.

That's probably okay. You could argue that the complete action "studying --> hormones" then leads to the creation of unconscious physical responses.

You could also say: studying produces hormones, which (hormones only) create...
Or: studying produces hormones that create... (hormones only again)

It just depends what you're trying to say. And the real test would ONLY give you both of those options if it indicated clearly in the original sentence what meaning it wanted. Otherwise, there's no way to tell.

Stacey Koprince wrote:Ok, thanks for the source. Let's use some different sentences to examine the principle.

The original sentence:

The use of GMAT books is based on the assumption that studying produces hormones in an individual that, in turn, create unconscious physical responses. (Yes, I know the meaning of the sentence is kind of amusing - I'm trying to match some singular and plural stuff in the original sentence!)

The "in turn" bit is just a little modifier tossed in to break up the sentence a bit and confuse you. Ignore it!

The use of GMAT books is based on the assumption that studying produces hormones in an individual that create unconscious physical responses.

Core:
The use <of X> is based on the assumption that studying produces <Y>.

Modifier Y:
hormones <in A> that create <Z> responses

No problems with core or modifier so far. I assume that the people who chose C thought there was something wrong with A, so let me know what you thought was wrong.

Now, adapting our new sentence for choice C:

The use of GMAT books is based on the assumption that studying produces hormones in an individual creating, in turn, unconscious physical responses.

Core:
The use <of X> is based on the assumption that studying produces <Y>.

Modifier Y:
hormones <in an individual creating responses?>

Still no problem in the core. That modifier, though... that's messy. There's no comma between "individual" and "creating" and that's a big problem. Try this phrase:
"stress in an individual studying hard for the GMAT"

What does that "studying hard for the GMAT" refer to? In this sentence, it's modifying the individual - and that makes sense.

But what about our example above? It's ambiguous here - "individual" is a candidate for the noun, because an individual can create unconscious responses... and so can the hormones... and, hey, so can studying! Which is it? Ambiguity = bad.

Note that there is no ambiguity in A, because the conjugated verb "create" can match only with a plural subject, so it must match with the plural "hormones." Now we know that it's definitely the hormones creating the responses.

komal wrote:The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that. in turn, create unconscious phYSiological responses.
(A) that, in turn, create unconscious physiological responses
(8) that creates unconscious physiological responses in turn
(C) creating, in turn, unconscious physiological responses
(D) to create, in turn, physiological responses that are unconscious
(E) who creates unconscious physiological responses in turn

lunarpower wrote:

MBA wrote:Hi,

can anyone answer my question--

How can "that"refers to the "plural noun" as in the present example "that"refers to "reactions"---plural (OG correct option-A)or in the other example"hormones"(Stacey's example)which is again plural.

thanks

this isn't the kind of "that" that you have in mind.

you're thinking of the pronoun "that" that appears in parallel constructions -- for instance, the government of country X and that of country Y.
in the case of that kind of pronoun, yes, you would need the version "those" to refer to something that's plural.
the regulatory entities of country X and those of country Y

on the other hand, this is a MODIFIER form of "that" -- i.e., a "that" that serves a purpose similar to the purpose served by "which" modifiers.
in this case, it's always "that", regardless of whether the noun in question is singular or plural.
a dog that barks
dogs that bark

voodoo_child wrote: What's a difference between "the government of country X and country Y" vs. "the government of country X and that of country Y" ? I believe both are same. Correct ?

Thanks
Voodoo