According to "An Amateur's Approach to GMAT SC"

3.3.8. That ( page 25 )

That modifies the nouns. It refers to the immediate previous noun in the previous clause. It is a restrictive clause and provides essential information about the subject of a sentence.

e.g.: The big GMAT book that is kept on the table is good.

Note: No comma is used! "that" here refers to "the particular (definite/fixed) book on the table"

That can refer to singular or plural. Refer SC-1000#193/ 379

In good years, the patchwork of green fields that surround the San Joaquin Valley town bustles with farm workers, many of them in the area just for the season.

In the above example, what that refers to depends on the verb that follows it.
If the sentence reads, ’a patchwork of greenfields that surround’. Here, ’that’ refers to ’greenfields’.
If the sentence reads, ’a patchwork of greenfields that surrounds’. Here, ’that’ refers to ’patchwork’.

Thanks Ron & Stuart !!!

Reopening this topic...
Here if we consider the meaning of this sentence then it would as below...
The green fields surround the town
The patchwork bustles with workers.

Considering the above point my answer is A..

How do we decide what is that modifying here. Greenfields or Patchwork?

Also, B starts an indep clause and it isn't properly connected to the previous clause. How is B correct then?

[email protected] wrote:How do we decide what is that modifying here. Greenfields or Patchwork?

The verb connected to the relative pronoun will dictate whether that pronoun is singular or plural.

the patchwork of green fields that surround the San Joaquin Valley

the verb here is "surround," which agrees with a plural subject. So we know "that" must have a plural antecedent. The closest plural antecedent is "green fields."

Hi David,

Ignoring the subordinate clause "that surround the San Joaquin Valley town"

I have extracted the main gist of the statement :

(A)The patchwork bustles with farm workers, many of them in the area just for the season
(B)The patchwork bustles with farm workers, many of whom are in the area just for the season
(C)The patchwork bustles with farm workers, many of who are in the area just for the season
(D)Incorrect for using plural Verb for singular subject Patch work
(E)The patchwork bustles with farm workers, many are in the area just for the season

I think the modifier after comma is acting as noun modifer and modifying "Farm Workers"
So we need a clause to do so
In this light (A) is incorrect and in (E) the referent for many is not clear

so we are left with B & C or precisely - many of who Vs Many of Whom

We use Whom to refer object of preposition
whereas we use "who" to refer the subject

But on doing some search I found below statements fron Nytimes

In a typical day, Ms. West might send instant and e-mail messages to patrons, many of who do their research online rather than in the library.

who is referring to Patrons which is acting as an object in the first statement

Another statement from Nytimes

For decades the residents of Hasankeyf, many of whom speak Kurdish, Arabic and Turkish and make a living herding sheep or weaving rugs, have lived with the knowledge that, at some point, they would be forced from their homes.

Here "whom" is used to refer back to the subject residents.

So to me both B & C - look good.

Also - In the original modifer
the patchwork of green fields that surround the San Joaquin Valley - why can't "that" refer to fields as it make sense that green fields are surrounding the whole city

Please help!

But on doing some search I found below statements fron Nytimes

In a typical day, Ms. West might send instant and e-mail messages to patrons, many of who do their research online rather than in the library.

Well, it looks the Times goofed here. It should be "many of whom." Note that in this construction, "whom" is the object of the preposition "of" irrespective of whether the entire phrase is modifying a subject or an object.

Two examples: The residents, many of whom are angry about the lack of hot water, have filed a protest. Here "many of whom" is part of a relative clause that modifies the subject, "the residents." Within the modifier, "whom" is an object of the preposition "of."

The landlord fielded many complaints from the residents, many of whom are angry about the lack of hot water. Now "many of whom" is part of a relative clause modifying the object "the residents." But again, "whom" is an object" of the preposition "of" within the modifier.

Also - In the original modifer
the patchwork of green fields that surround the San Joaquin Valley - why can't "that" refer to fields as it make sense that green fields are surrounding the whole city

"that" does refer to "green fields."

Thanks David for the reply.

I have got two more doubts :

1> Where do we use "Many of who" - Is this a valid construction?

2> As you stated : "that" does refer to "green fields." - If this is the case how can the answer choice B be right, because B uses the verb singular Surrounds to modify plural fields.

divuu.verma wrote:Thanks David for the reply.

I have got two more doubts :

1> Where do we use "Many of who" - Is this a valid construction?

2> As you stated : "that" does refer to "green fields." - If this is the case how can the answer choice B be right, because B uses the verb singular Surrounds to modify plural fields.

1) So far as I can tell, never. In the construction "many of whom," "whom" is the object of a prepositional phrase. (We'd only use "who" if it were functioning as the subject of a verb.)

2) The consensus here is that this example is from a questionable source. (The OA, evidently, was given as A. Ron and Stuart, in their discussion, decided that B was better. I'm less interested in this question than in extracting some grammatical understanding that can be applied to official problems.)

The important thing to recognize is that the verb corresponding to "that" will dictate whether "that" requires a plural or singular antecedent.

If I write the patchwork of green fields that surround, "surround" is a plural verb, and so "that" should have a plural antecedent. (green fields)
If I write the patchwork of green fields that surrounds, "surrounds" is a singular verb, and so "that" should have a singular antecedent. (the patchwork)

The logic of the sentence will help settle which construction is preferable. Just know that either can potentially work. (If this is unclear let me know - I'll dig up an official problem that can illustrate the concept.)

Thanks a ton David - that clears the confusion.

Though Its been claimed as one of the GMAT Prep question, I will leave this question here only.

Yes it will be great to seal the concept with an example.

Thanks Again

divuu.verma wrote:Thanks a ton David - that clears the confusion.

Though Its been claimed as one of the GMAT Prep question, I will leave this question here only.

Yes it will be great to seal the concept with an example.

Thanks Again

Sure thing. Look at these two options:

For many revisionist historians, Christopher Columbus has come to personify devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that has decimated native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.


The verb with "that" is "has," so we know "that" requires a singular antecedent. The closest option? "Progress." But now this sentence is asserting that progress has decimated native peoples. Not terribly logical.


For many revisionist historians, Christopher Columbus has come to personify devastation the devastation and enslavement in the name of progress that have decimated the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.


The verb with "that" is "have" so we know "that" requires a plural plural antecedent. The closest option: "devastation and enslavement." It makes a lot more sense to claim that devastation and enslavement have decimated the native peoples than to claim that progress has decimated the native peoples, so the latter option is the OA. The distinction here is rooted more in logic than in grammar.