EducationAisle wrote:ok. How about this:

The children of Michael and Michelle are studying in college.

This can mean:

a) The children of Michael and (children of) Michelle are studying in college.
b) The children of (Michael and Michelle) are studying in college.

How is this different from the previous example?

LIL wrote: e.g. it would be okay to say "the governments of country x and country y are democratic" > both country x and country y have democratic governments.

EducationAisle wrote:

LIL wrote: e.g. it would be okay to say "the governments of country x and country y are democratic" > both country x and country y have democratic governments.

What is preventing me from interpreting the above statement as if both country x and country y have multiple governments?

lunarpower wrote:

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

they are not the same.

"the government [singular] of country x and y" implies that there is only a single government for both countries x and y.

"the government of country x and that of country y" implies the more reasonable meaning that the two countries have separate governments. note that you could achieve the same effect with "the governments [plural] of country x and (of) country y".

lunarpower wrote:

voodoo_child wrote:How can I know that 'that' modifies reactions and not individual ?
...
Is it that we have to understand the meaning and then decide about correct Subj-Verb form

this is it. it depends on meaning.
(for a similar problem, see diagnostic #50 in og11 or og12.)

additional example:
diseases in mice that have been documented over the past few years... --> context dictates that the modifier modifies "diseases in mice"
diseases in mice that have been overdosed with drug X... --> context dictates that the modifier modifies "mice"

--

... although, in this particular problem, "individual" isn't a grammatically valid referent, anyway -- an individual is a person, so "that" can't modify this word (you'd have to use "who").

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: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.