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

Redeem

Singular / plural

Expert replies
by winnerhere » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:42 pm
leaves of the tree that is

leaves of the tree that are

are both these constructions grammatically correct? in the first construction "that" refers to tree and in the second construction "that" refers to leaves.

Thanks,
Sai
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by cans » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:52 pm
Can you post the complete sentence??
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Join the discussion

by winnerhere » Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:03 pm
Here you go

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in
1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the
earliest known mammal of
the Greater Antilles Islands.

(A) sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at
34 million years old, made it the earliest known
mammal of

(B) sloth, that they found in Puerto Rico in 1991, has
been dated at 34 million years old, thus making
it the earliest mammal known on

(C) sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was
dated at 34 million years old, making this the
earliest known mammal of

(D) sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been
dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth
the earliest known mammal on

(E) sloth which, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was
dated at 34 million years old, made the sloth the
earliest known mammal of

Construction C is told to be wrong - saying that arms is plural and "that was" has a singular verb...
Join the discussion

by Frankenstein » Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:21 pm
Hi,
Fossils is the subject in this. So, the verb should be plural one.(not was, which is singular).
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by cans » Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:05 am
Fossils of the arm of a sloth that was........

Fossils is the subject here which is plural
and thus verb should be plural.
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Join the discussion

by nafiul9090 » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:06 am
IMO D
Join the discussion

by Jim@Grockit » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:26 am
winnerhere wrote:leaves of the tree that is

leaves of the tree that are

are both these constructions grammatically correct? in the first construction "that" refers to tree and in the second construction "that" refers to leaves.

Thanks,
Sai
You're correct -- the first would refer to tree, the second to leaves. In real life you would probably want to re-write the second one for even greater clarity.
Join the discussion

by winnerhere » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:56 am
Thank for the input guys... :)
Join the discussion

by abhishek.pati » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:24 pm
IMO D

What is the OA for the post ...
Join the discussion

by sandy217 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:27 am
winnerhere wrote:Here you go

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in
1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the
earliest known mammal of
the Greater Antilles Islands.

(A) sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at
34 million years old, made it the earliest known
mammal of

(B) sloth, that they found in Puerto Rico in 1991, has
been dated at 34 million years old, thus making
it the earliest mammal known on

(C) sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was
dated at 34 million years old, making this the
earliest known mammal of

(D) sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been
dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth
the earliest known mammal on

(E) sloth which, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was
dated at 34 million years old, made the sloth the
earliest known mammal of

Construction C is told to be wrong - saying that arms is plural and "that was" has a singular verb...
I always prefer non-underlined part of the sentence to pick singular/plural. If sloth is subject, u cannot date sloth to 34 million years old.In order to make the sentence sound logically correct, Fossils has to be subject.

Thanks
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:05 am
Jim@Grockit wrote:
winnerhere wrote:leaves of the tree that is

leaves of the tree that are

are both these constructions grammatically correct? in the first construction "that" refers to tree and in the second construction "that" refers to leaves.

Thanks,
Sai
You're correct -- the first would refer to tree, the second to leaves. In real life you would probably want to re-write the second one for even greater clarity.
Hi Jim,

I think only the first one is correct. "That" is a relative pronoun which refers to closest noun(tree) in both the cases.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by Jim@Grockit » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:51 pm
vikram4689 wrote:
Jim@Grockit wrote:
winnerhere wrote:leaves of the tree that is

leaves of the tree that are

are both these constructions grammatically correct? in the first construction "that" refers to tree and in the second construction "that" refers to leaves.

Thanks,
Sai
You're correct -- the first would refer to tree, the second to leaves. In real life you would probably want to re-write the second one for even greater clarity.
Hi Jim,

I think only the first one is correct. "That" is a relative pronoun which refers to closest noun(tree) in both the cases.
I disagree, but I am out of town and thus do not have my reference books at hand. The leaves of the tree that are brown and wrinkled are dying; the leaves that are still green are fine. Intonation in spoken English would make the sentence clear; in writing, the interruption is undesirable and should be avoided.

I will try to remember to look it up when I get home. The most logical thing is for "that" to refer to what's immediately before it, but I believe it ultimately restricts the noun it restricts.
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:02 pm
Hi Jim,
The leaves of the tree that are brown and wrinkled are dying;
Relative pronouns refer to noun immediately preceding them but if they may refer to other noun if the noun preceding them does not make sense and hence there is no ambiguity. That is why, this sentence is fine because tree cannot be wrinkled.

Had this sentence or original sentence been

Medicines are formed from leaves of the tree that (is/are) brown in color. Now sentence can be:
Medicines are formed from leaves of the tree that is brown in color. (that refer to tree)
Medicines are formed from leaves of the tree that are brown in color. ( that refer to leaves)
So this sentence is wrong because of pronoun error.

Coming to our sentence, "leaves of the tree is/are". Whether this sentence is correct is wrong depends on the object (as shown above). Since we have been a clause we cannot actually tell whether this is correct or not.

Please share your thoughts on this matter.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by Sanjay2706 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:48 pm
IMO D.

Could you let me know the OA please.

Cheers.
Join the discussion

• Page 1 of 1