Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to respond of the possessive / non-living question.

It isn't the case that non-living things can never be in possessive form. The issue is whether the particular combination of words makes sense / can be true.

"The car's leather seats are black" is fine because the car does "possess" the leather seats. The leather seats "belong" to the car.

"The car's proclamation that speeding is dangerous..." is not okay because the car cannot make a proclamation. "The car owner's proclamation that speeding is dangerous" is okay because a car owner can make a proclamation.

mmslf wrote:


OA is C

Choosing A would mean that " FIELDS' POSING " which is wrong usage

Stacey Koprince wrote:I didn't address the problem directly because that's an OG problem - we're not supposed to be posting and commenting on those online.

I do not see an possessive apostrophe after the word "fields" in that question though (in the original post in which the problem is typed out). Is that a typo - was there supposed to be an apostrophe there?

Also, can an electromagnetic field pose a threat? Yes. This is not similar to the example I gave - where a car cannot make a proclamation about something. (Nor can an electromagnetic field make a proclamation about something - making a proclamation requires someone who can speak, write, or otherwise communicate that proclamation to others.)

Stacey Koprince wrote:Yeah, this is a confusing issue. What Ron wrote is correct, and he did a good job with the explanation - it's just a really confusing topic.

1. No proof exists of baby rabbits posing any health threat.
2. No proof exists of baby rabbits' posing any health threat.

1. No proof exists of me posing any health threat.
2. No proof exists of my posing any health threat.

Both (1) sentences above are incorrect. The basic construction is "no proof exists of <modifier> <main noun> any health threat." The main noun is "posing," and "baby rabbits" is acting as a modifier in the first set. Because that modifier is what would "pose" as the health threat, you'd need to use the possessive form here: baby rabbits' (even though that looks / sounds bizarre).

The second set shows the equivalent setup with "me" and my" instead. The first sentence, using "me," basically says that there's no proof I exist. The second sentence says that "my posing a health threat" doesn't exist (well - technically, there's no proof that it exists), but it doesn't say that there's no proof that I exist. (Thankfully!)

So, both (2) sentences above are incorrect. The GMAT does not like the sort of construction seen in the rabbits (2) sentence, though. They tend to call this an awkward construction and won't put it in a correct answer (even though it is, technically, grammatically correct).

The second set shows the equivalent setup with "me" and my" instead. The first sentence, using "me," basically says that there's no proof I exist. The second sentence says that "my posing a health threat" doesn't exist (well - technically, there's no proof that it exists), but it doesn't say that there's no proof that I exist. (Thankfully!)

farooq wrote:

shipra wrote:94. The Olympic Games helped to keep peace among the pugnacious states of the Greek world in that a sacred truce was proclaimed during the festival�s month.
(A) world in that a sacred truce was proclaimed during the festival�s month
(B) world, proclaiming a sacred truce during the festival�s month
(C) world when they proclaimed a sacred truce for the festival month
(D) world, for a sacred truce was proclaimed during the month of the festival
(E) world by proclamation of a sacred truce that was for the month of the festival

These are two independent clauses and they should be joined by special conjunctions (FANBOYS).

"in that" can be grammatically correct but use of "for" is best.