BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

SC Question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

SC Question

by voodoo_child » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:28 pm
Initially developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues, a technique called radiocarbon dating, which can determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, has become an indispensable tool used by archaeologists, geologists, and geophysicists.

(A) ANSWER
Initially developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues, a technique called radiocarbon dating, which can determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years,

(B)
Initially developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues, having the ability to determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, a technique called radiocarbon dating

(C)
A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, called radiocarbon dating, which can determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years,

(D)
A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, called radiocarbon dating, which has the ability to determine the age of organic materials and for up to about 60,000 years,

(E)
A technique that was initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues and has the ability to determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, called radiocarbon dating,

Can you please help me to eliminate D and E?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:610

by singh181 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:04 pm
D and E both have "Modifier" issue. The "techinque" is "called radiocarbon dating". So, descriptive phrase must be placed close to the item the phrase is describing.

Also, D places a "and" between "age of ogranic materials" and "for up to about 60,000 years", breaking the meaning of the sentence.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:29 pm
(D)
A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, called radiocarbon dating, which has the ability to determine the age of organic materials and for up to about 60,000 years,

(E)
A technique that was initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues and has the ability to determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, called radiocarbon dating,
Yep, misplaced modifiers are problematic in both of these.

In (D), we'd need the "which..." phrase to show up much closer to "technique" -- as it is, the "which..." phrase modifies "radiocarbon dating." That might seem unproblematic at first thought, since radiocarbon dating does indeed "have the ability to...," but really "radiocarbon dating" is just being used as the NAME of the technique here, and the "which" wants to link back up with "technique" itself and is too far away from it to do be able to do so. Perhaps more importantly, the placement of "called radiocarbon dating" is problematic -- it really needs to appear right next to "technique." Its current placement in the sentence makes it seem like it should be an appositive for "colleagues" or something (for instance, I might say "A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, two scientists from Harvard University, has the ability to..."). Finally, (D) has this useless "and for" popping up in the middle of the sentence for no apparent reason.

In (E) the only major problem is that again, "called radiocarbon dating" is way too far away from "technique": where it's placed now, it should be playing the role of an appositive for 60,000 years (for instance, "...and has the ability to determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, an exceedingly long time period from a geological perspective"). (E) is also a little extra wordy on account of the "that was" (but that's not a grammatical error, just a stylistic tie-breaker).[/quote]
Last edited by Ashley@VeritasPrep on Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:39 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by ranjithreddy.k9 » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:46 am
How is A better than C ?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:29 am
whats the source ?
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:38 am
ranjithreddy.k9 wrote:How is A better than C ?
(A)
Initially developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues, a technique called radiocarbon dating, which can determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years,

(C)
A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, called radiocarbon dating, which can determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years,
(C) suffers from the exact same problem as was mentioned for (D):
the placement of "called radiocarbon dating" is problematic -- it really needs to appear right next to "technique." Its current placement in the sentence makes it seem like it should be an appositive for "colleagues" or something (for instance, I might say "A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, two scientists from Harvard University, has the ability to...").
(A) avoids this problem and places everything properly: "Initially developed by W.L. and his colleagues" is a participial phrase modifying "technique"; "called radiocarbon dating" also modifies technique... and both of those modifiers are placed right next to "technique."
Last edited by Ashley@VeritasPrep on Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:56 am
ranjithreddy.k9 wrote:How is A better than C ?
In A, the initial modifier is acting as a dangling modifier.
In C, the modifier is acting as an appositive.

C: The test conducted by GMAC, initially labeled as "The Devil", was ....blah blah.....
A : Having worked hard, GMAC Instructors...

IN C, initially labeled as.....is appositive modifying the noun before comma.

There is a catch about absolute phrase which refers to the entire clause. e.g.

Human rights became worse in Egypt, a situation that blah blah blah....

Makes sense?

Thanks
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:07 am
One quick note: a "dangling" modifier is a grammatical error, i.e. it's an error to leave the modifier dangling. In (A), the modifier isn't left dangling, because it gets to latch onto "technique." (It'd be dangling -- and therefore in error -- if, for instance, the sentence read 'Initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, the age of organic materials can...,' because in that case, "developed" wouldn't get the subject it needs to latch onto.) The terminology is not that important, of course, as long as you understand, but just want to avoid any confusion on anyone's part!
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:46 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by jonathan123456 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:06 pm
A and C are quite close answers but I agree A wins :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:10 am
Ashley@VeritasPrep wrote:
(D)

Yep, misplaced modifiers are problematic in both of these.

In (D), we'd need the "which..." phrase to show up much closer to "technique" -- as it is, the "which..." phrase modifies "radiocarbon dating." That might seem unproblematic at first thought, since radiocarbon dating does indeed "have the ability to...," but really "radiocarbon dating" is just being used as the NAME of the technique here, and the "which" wants to link back up with "technique" itself and is too far away from it to do be able to do so. Perhaps more importantly, the placement of "called radiocarbon dating" is problematic -- it really needs to appear right next to "technique." Its current placement in the sentence makes it seem like it should be an appositive for "colleagues" or something (for instance, I might say "A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, two scientists from Harvard University, has the ability to..."). Finally, (D) has this useless "and for" popping up in the middle of the sentence for no apparent reason.
.
Ashley,
I have a question. Are the two below constructions ok (1 A and 1B) (2 A and 2B) ?

1 a) A technique called XYZ, known to help people OR
1 b) A technique, called XYZ, known to help people

2 a) A technique called XYZ, which OR
2 b) A technique, called XYZ, which....

I want to understand whether we can "split" the descriptive phrase using commas. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Voodoo
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:00 pm
I'd go for

1a) A technique called XYZ, known to help people

and

2a) A technique called XYZ, which...

If you were to insert the extra commas, it would basically have the effect of rendering "called XYZ" nonessential, i.e. suggesting that it was just sort of "by-the-way" information. But in fact it's essential here, since it's this specific technique XYZ that's known to help people (or presumably this specific technique XYZ that does whatever will follow the "which").
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:06 am
Ashley@VeritasPrep wrote:
(D)
A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, called radiocarbon dating, which has the ability to determine the age of organic materials and for up to about 60,000 years,

(E)
A technique that was initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues and has the ability to determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, called radiocarbon dating,
Yep, misplaced modifiers are problematic in both of these.

In (D), we'd need the "which..." phrase to show up much closer to "technique" -- as it is, the "which..." phrase modifies "radiocarbon dating." That might seem unproblematic at first thought, since radiocarbon dating does indeed "have the ability to...," but really "radiocarbon dating" is just being used as the NAME of the technique here, and the "which" wants to link back up with "technique" itself and is too far away from it to do be able to do so. Perhaps more importantly, the placement of "called radiocarbon dating" is problematic -- it really needs to appear right next to "technique." Its current placement in the sentence makes it seem like it should be an appositive for "colleagues" or something (for instance, I might say "A technique initially developed by William Libby and his colleagues, two scientists from Harvard University, has the ability to..."). Finally, (D) has this useless "and for" popping up in the middle of the sentence for no apparent reason.

In (E) the only major problem is that again, "called radiocarbon dating" is way too far away from "technique": where it's placed now, it should be playing the role of an appositive for 60,000 years (for instance, "...and has the ability to determine the age of organic materials up to about 60,000 years, an exceedingly long time period from a geological perspective"). (E) is also a little extra wordy on account of the "that was" (but that's not a grammatical error, just a stylistic tie-breaker).
[/quote]

Hello Ashley,
I have a question -
If we go by above rule i.e. "appositive of colleagues" mentioned by you, then the following sentence will be inaccurate ?

"These creatures spend the first week after hibernation wandering around their habitat, blinded by the sun"

However, logically blinded refers to creatures. Secondly, these participial modifiers (please correct me if i am wrong) can be placed anywhere as long as their placement is correct?

another example - my friend who was exhilarated drove the car, watching a movie.

In the above sentence, "watching a movie" can only be done by "my friend" Correct?

Appreciate your help :)

Thanks
Voodoo
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:48 pm
Just to add another question to above post;
Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.

C. Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and that ends shortly before Emily's death in 1886 and outnumbering

C) is obviously wrong because of an issue with parallelism. My question is that -
Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington, written over ......

Is this construction okay ? written over ..is a participial phrase describing letters....logically modifies letters and not Ms. Huntington. Correct ?

Secondly,
Many of the earliest known images of Hindu deities in India date from the time of the
Kushan empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan
grey schist.
A. empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
B. empire, fashioned from either the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
C. empire, either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
D. empire and either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
E. empire and were fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from

Here, the correct answer can be reached by using the idiom. But, I am more curious about the "-ed" modifier. Is it modifying Empire (the closest noun) or the most logical noun ? I am curious. OExplanation says that "fashioned" modifies the closest noun. I am a bit confused now :(
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:45 am
Hey voodoo_child:

Great question. The difference in these cases is that in the Dickinson's letters question, "to Susan Huntington Dickinson" is an essential modifier that's part of the noun phrase. You really can't say it any other way - you can't just say "letters" because it's not specific enough to these particular letters, so that modifying phrase is part of the noun. Similarly, you could say:

The House of Representatives, America's population-dependent legislative body, is...

"of Representatives" is a modifier describing "which house?", but since it's essential ("the house" is way too general...we're talking about a specific house here) it's part of the noun phrase and we can use the singular "legislative body" in the modifier to describe "the House" even though the closest noun, "representatives" is plural. If you have an essential modifier (...of X; ...in Y; etc.) as part of a noun phrase, it counts as part of the entire noun.


In the second example, "...date from the time of" is a verb phrase - "date" is a verb that corresponds to the noun "images", so "Kushan empire" isn't part of the noun. "Kushan empire" is part of the predicate, but the "fashioned from..." modifier needs to modify the subject.

I hope that helps...
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1