At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
(A) land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
(B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
(C) land, respected by the Spaniards and a pre-Columbian form of ownership
(D) land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards
(E) land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
Could any of the experts please explain the difference between Options A and E. The OA is A but I chose E as the answer. Also explain why option D cannot be the answer. I feel because of the prepositional error.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
confusing SC!!!
-
[email protected]
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 934
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
- Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
- Thanked: 63 times
- Followed by:14 members
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT
LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!
Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!
Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
Hi, there! I'm happy to help with this. 
You're right about D: the problem is the preposition. The phrases "...to communal ownership of land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards" implies that the pre-Columbian form of ownership was "in" the land --- inside the land? buried in the ground? However we interpret that, that's clearly not the meaning for which we are striving.
The problem with E, "...to communal ownership of land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards" ---- to what exactly does the word "that" refer? Here, it appears to refer to "land", but we can't say that "land" "had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership."
We want whatever "had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership" to parallel the Zapatista plan, the "return to a communal ownership of land." The noun that forms the proper parallel, "a communal ownership of land," is the object of the preposition "to", so a correct parallel structure will have the pre-Columbian thing also as an object of the preposition "to." That's why the OA, answer A, is the best choice.
Does this make sense? Please let me know if you have any questions.
Mike
You're right about D: the problem is the preposition. The phrases "...to communal ownership of land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards" implies that the pre-Columbian form of ownership was "in" the land --- inside the land? buried in the ground? However we interpret that, that's clearly not the meaning for which we are striving.
The problem with E, "...to communal ownership of land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards" ---- to what exactly does the word "that" refer? Here, it appears to refer to "land", but we can't say that "land" "had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership."
We want whatever "had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership" to parallel the Zapatista plan, the "return to a communal ownership of land." The noun that forms the proper parallel, "a communal ownership of land," is the object of the preposition "to", so a correct parallel structure will have the pre-Columbian thing also as an object of the preposition "to." That's why the OA, answer A, is the best choice.
Does this make sense? Please let me know if you have any questions.
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
-
[email protected]
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 934
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
- Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
- Thanked: 63 times
- Followed by:14 members
Thanks mikemcgarry! for your explanation. But let me ask you one more question...
If option E was as under:
land that had been under a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
Then would this answer choice would be correct or no??
I am still not happy with 'to what' option in option A. What does 'to what' imply....
If option E was as under:
land that had been under a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
Then would this answer choice would be correct or no??
I am still not happy with 'to what' option in option A. What does 'to what' imply....
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT
LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!
Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!
Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
Technically, the modified E you suggest would be grammatically correct:
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land that had been under a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
The trouble is (1) it is no longer a parallel structure, so it's awkward, and (2) it changes the meaning. Part of the meaning of this sentence is that the change that the Zapatistas want to see is THE SAME AS what the arrangement had been in pre-Columbian times. Putting those elements in parallel underscores their identity.
I'd like to convince you that the original sentence is perfectly acceptable. Original sentence:
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
Think about these sentences.
1) I am continuing to do what I want.
2) She really wants what her sister got last month at the county fair.
3) Congress has neglected to do what most economic experts say is necessary for the growth of the manufacturing sector.
4) What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
All four of those are examples of subordinate clauses that function as nouns. In all three sentences, the clause takes the role of the direct object, and in the final one (a quote from Nietzsche), the clause is the subject of the sentence.
This is all that is going on in the original sentence, just with more words. The Zapatistas wanted to return to that thing. To what thing? To what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
Does that make sense?
Mike
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land that had been under a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
The trouble is (1) it is no longer a parallel structure, so it's awkward, and (2) it changes the meaning. Part of the meaning of this sentence is that the change that the Zapatistas want to see is THE SAME AS what the arrangement had been in pre-Columbian times. Putting those elements in parallel underscores their identity.
I'd like to convince you that the original sentence is perfectly acceptable. Original sentence:
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
Think about these sentences.
1) I am continuing to do what I want.
2) She really wants what her sister got last month at the county fair.
3) Congress has neglected to do what most economic experts say is necessary for the growth of the manufacturing sector.
4) What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
All four of those are examples of subordinate clauses that function as nouns. In all three sentences, the clause takes the role of the direct object, and in the final one (a quote from Nietzsche), the clause is the subject of the sentence.
This is all that is going on in the original sentence, just with more words. The Zapatistas wanted to return to that thing. To what thing? To what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
Does that make sense?
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
-
vikram4689
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
- Thanked: 105 times
- Followed by:14 members
What is the meaning of this sentence
1. ...proposed a return to communal ownership of land (is the bold part what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards acting as modifier to "communal ownership of land")
OR
2. ...proposed a return to communal ownership of land from a different type of ownershipwhat had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership
1. ...proposed a return to communal ownership of land (is the bold part what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards acting as modifier to "communal ownership of land")
OR
2. ...proposed a return to communal ownership of land from a different type of ownershipwhat had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
Dear vikram,vikram4689 wrote:What is the meaning of this sentence
1. ...proposed a return to communal ownership of land (is the bold part what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards acting as modifier to "communal ownership of land")
OR
2. ...proposed a return to communal ownership of land from a different type of ownershipwhat had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership
Here's the original correct sentence ---
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
It's actually neither of the grammatical forms you describe. This is a special type of parallel called an "appositive phrase." An appositive phrase is a noun or noun phrase which immediate follows a noun and is identical to it, often giving an alternate way to describe it. For example:
This is my friend, the world-famous actor.
I admire Lincoln, the man who guided the US through its darkest period.
In SF, I am going to visit ATT Park, the new stadium where the SF Giants now play.
The three underlines phrases are appositive phrases --- in all cases, there are absolutely identical to the noun directly preceding them, and they are added as amplifications or further descriptions. In the first sentence, the hypothetical listener might not know my hypothetical friends is a famous actor, so I supply that information. In the other two, the hypothetical audience might not be familiar with the role of President Lincoln or the significance of ATT Park.
Appositive phrases are always in parallel to the noun they modify:
I am reading about Lincoln, about the man who guided the US through its darkest period.
I am travelling to Glastonbury, to the place where King Arthur was buried.
These appositive phrases are parallel, which means they have to have the same preposition ---- in fact, seeing the same preposition is often a tip-off that you are dealing with a parallel structure. Here also, it's appositive, because "Glastonbury" and "the place where King Arthur was buried" are not two different things --- the latter is a description or amplification of the former.
Now, back to our sentence:
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
The two appearances of the preposition "to" tips us off to the fact that we are dealing with some kind of parallel structure. The objects of the preposition "to" are not two different things --- these are
(a) communal ownership of land
(b) what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
The latter is identical to the former, and is a further description or amplification of it. That's exactly how an appositive phrase functions. This is a very informative appositive phrase: it lets us know --- the communal ownership of land that the Zapatistas wanted was not a brand new thing they concocted on their own, but rather was something with deep historical roots, an indigenous system that preceded Columbus and which the Spanish conquistadors tolerated and allowed to continue.
The appositive phrase does more than modify --- it's actually identical to the noun which precedes it.
Does that make sense?
Here's a video lesson you might find helpful.
https://gmat.magoosh.com/lessons/158-apposition
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
I received a PM asking me to comment.[email protected] wrote:At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
(A) land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
(B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
(C) land, respected by the Spaniards and a pre-Columbian form of ownership
(D) land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards
(E) land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
Could any of the experts please explain the difference between Options A and E. The OA is A but I chose E as the answer. Also explain why option D cannot be the answer. I feel because of the prepositional error.
I offered an explanation for this SC here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mexican-agra ... 40-15.html
As Mike noted, the OA offers the following construction:
What had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership is a NOUN CLAUSE: a CLAUSE -- subject + verb -- serving as a NOUN.
This noun clause is in APPOSITION to the preceding noun (communal ownership).
Two nouns are in apposition when they appear side-by-side, with the second serving to explain or define the first.
Communal ownership = WHAT HAD BEEN A PRE-COLUMBIAN FORM OF OWNERSHIP.
Each noun refers to the SAME THING: the TYPE OF OWNERSHIP to which there would be a RETURN.
If we omit the first noun and the modifiers, we can perhaps see the meaning more clearly:
The most radical faction proposed a return to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
vikram4689
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
- Thanked: 105 times
- Followed by:14 members
Thanks Mike and Mitch.
I am aware of Appositive modifier but in most of the cases a noun(phrase) follows DIRECTLY(without intervention of "to") after the comma
e.g. This is my friend, the world-famous actor
So would the following 2 sentence mean EXACTLY SAME ( in b/ i omitted "to")
a/ The most radical faction proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
b/ The most radical faction proposed a return to communal ownership of land, what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
For other choices (I visited the link that Mitch provided) and have following opinions. Please comment on following
B/ modifer is a combination of Appositive and Participle modifier respectively. So this is NOT incorrect
E/ "that" refers to "communal ownership of land" and NOT "land" because latter does not make sense as land cannot be "pre-columbian form ownership" ONLY one form of ownership can be equal of .
e.g. Baby came from egg of snake that was broken during earthquake. Here "that" unambiguously refers to "egg"
C/ similar reason as for B (only modifers are reversed)
D/ I AGREE "in which" does NOT make sense
Please correct if i am wrong..
I am aware of Appositive modifier but in most of the cases a noun(phrase) follows DIRECTLY(without intervention of "to") after the comma
e.g. This is my friend, the world-famous actor
So would the following 2 sentence mean EXACTLY SAME ( in b/ i omitted "to")
a/ The most radical faction proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
b/ The most radical faction proposed a return to communal ownership of land, what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
For other choices (I visited the link that Mitch provided) and have following opinions. Please comment on following
B/ modifer is a combination of Appositive and Participle modifier respectively. So this is NOT incorrect
E/ "that" refers to "communal ownership of land" and NOT "land" because latter does not make sense as land cannot be "pre-columbian form ownership" ONLY one form of ownership can be equal of .
e.g. Baby came from egg of snake that was broken during earthquake. Here "that" unambiguously refers to "egg"
C/ similar reason as for B (only modifers are reversed)
D/ I AGREE "in which" does NOT make sense
Please correct if i am wrong..
Last edited by vikram4689 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
vikram:vikram4689 wrote:Thanks Mike and Mitch.
I am aware of Appositive modifier but in most of the cases a noun(phrase) follows DIRECTLY(without intervention of "to") after the comma.
I believe the piece you are missing is ---- apposition is a special case of parallel construction, and must follow all the rules & conventions of parallel structure.
Thus, in the sentence . . .
I visited my friend, the world-famous actor.
. . the noun "my friend" is a direct object, and so the phrases "world famous actor" is also a direct object. In English (unlike in, say, Latin), a noun looks the same whether it's the subject (nominative case) or an object (accusative case). The difference is only clear with pronouns:
I visited my friend, him who almost won the Oscar.
OK, that's an awkward sentence that no one would say, but the point is: if we put a pronoun in there as part of the appositive phrase, it would have to reflect the case of the noun it was modifying.
If the noun modified is the object of a preposition, then by the basic laws of parallelism, the noun in apposition must also take the preposition.
Albany is on the Hudson River in upstate New York, on the river that flows into New York Harbor.
The phrase "the river that flows into New York Harbor" is in apposition to "Hudson River", and that is signaled by use of the preposition "on." Notice the power of parallel structure --- even though the appositive phrase is not next to "Hudson River", use the preposition precisely picks out the correct parallel element from the sentence. By contrast, many people would say . . .
Albany is on the Hudson River in upstate New York, the river that flows into New York Harbor.
. . . but this is incorrect, and unacceptable by GMAT standards. This is one of these cases in which, in spoken English, people regularly flout the rule. In someone said the red sentence, you would know what they meant, but technically, they are comparing upstate New York to a river.
Much in the same way, in the original sentence, using choice (B):
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of (B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
Or, choice (A) without the word "to"
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
These are cases in which, if someone said one of these sentences in spoken English, you would know what it means. It is a mistake often made in speech. Technically, though it's incorrect, and again, not up to GMAT SC standards. Technically, if there's no preposition to signal parallelism to some other place in these sentences, the default for apposition or for any modifier is to modify what's immediately next to it. Therefore, either is saying that the land, the land itself, is "a form of ownership." That's illogical --- people can own the land, but the land itself is not a form of ownership. In fact, all the other answer choices have this problem --- they are all modifying "land" (by the modifier "touch rule"), whereas they should be modifying "communal ownership."
Does this make sense?
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
-
vikram4689
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
- Thanked: 105 times
- Followed by:14 members
Thanks Mike. Few queries
1. B/ has 2 modifiers Appositive(a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians) and participle(respected by the Spaniards) As you mentioned that Appositive NEED to be || and hence need preposition "to" in this case. IS IT SAME with PARTICIPLE modifier. I mean if a participle modifier is modifying a subject of preposition and object of preposition does not make sense then would it be correct or incorrect.
Construction i am talking is "sub. of prep" "prep" "object of prep", participle modifier
2. If i were to make B correct whether following sentence would work OR what would be correct way
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
3. Using the analysis you provided, All but E can be eliminated. How to eliminate E. I have read that although "that" is a restrictive modifier it can modify subject of preposition if is it clear from meaning of sentence that object of preposition does not make sense (as in my example below)
E/ "that" refers to "communal ownership of land" and NOT "land" because latter does not make sense as land cannot be "pre-columbian form ownership" ONLY one form of ownership can be equal of .
e.g. Baby came from egg of snake that was broken during earthquake. Here "that" unambiguously refers to "egg"
1. B/ has 2 modifiers Appositive(a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians) and participle(respected by the Spaniards) As you mentioned that Appositive NEED to be || and hence need preposition "to" in this case. IS IT SAME with PARTICIPLE modifier. I mean if a participle modifier is modifying a subject of preposition and object of preposition does not make sense then would it be correct or incorrect.
Construction i am talking is "sub. of prep" "prep" "object of prep", participle modifier
2. If i were to make B correct whether following sentence would work OR what would be correct way
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
3. Using the analysis you provided, All but E can be eliminated. How to eliminate E. I have read that although "that" is a restrictive modifier it can modify subject of preposition if is it clear from meaning of sentence that object of preposition does not make sense (as in my example below)
E/ "that" refers to "communal ownership of land" and NOT "land" because latter does not make sense as land cannot be "pre-columbian form ownership" ONLY one form of ownership can be equal of .
e.g. Baby came from egg of snake that was broken during earthquake. Here "that" unambiguously refers to "egg"
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
-
bubbliiiiiiii
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 49 times
- Followed by:12 members
- GMAT Score:700
With my understanding from the post, I am attempting to answer your queries. Mike please correct me.
I think there is only one modifier in option B. However the past participle phrase is trying to parallel something (considering and) which is not available in the option.1. B/ has 2 modifiers Appositive(a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians) and participle(respected by the Spaniards) As you mentioned that Appositive NEED to be || and hence need preposition "to" in this case. IS IT SAME with PARTICIPLE modifier. I mean if a participle modifier is modifying a subject of preposition and object of preposition does not make sense then would it be correct or incorrect.
Construction i am talking is "sub. of prep" "prep" "object of prep", participle modifier
No. Although you have tried to make the appositives parallel by adding 'to', you have not taken care of parallelism of the participle modifier.2. If i were to make B correct whether following sentence would work OR what would be correct way
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
Looking forward for more explanations on this one. I think 'that' can modify the immediately preceeding noun (land in this case) or prepositional phrase (communal ownership of land)? Am I right?3. Using the analysis you provided, All but E can be eliminated. How to eliminate E. I have read that although "that" is a restrictive modifier it can modify subject of preposition if is it clear from meaning of sentence that object of preposition does not make sense (as in my example below)
Regards,
Pranay
Pranay
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Distance matters. E offers the following: ownership of land that had been a pre-Columbian form of. At this point, most readers will assume that the LAND had been a pre-Columbian FORM of something (a form of payment, perhaps). Thus, the damage has been done: after reading seven words of the modifying phrase, a reader cannot be expected to go back and reinterpret what he has just read.vikram4689 wrote: E/ "that" refers to "communal ownership of land" and NOT "land" because latter does not make sense as land cannot be "pre-columbian form ownership" ONLY one form of ownership can be equal of .
e.g. Baby came from egg of snake that was broken during earthquake. Here "that" unambiguously refers to "egg"
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Mike@Magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA
- Thanked: 387 times
- Followed by:140 members
Mitch & bubbliiiiiiii already addressed many of these concerns, but because you asked me by name, I feel obliged to respond.vikram4689 wrote:Thanks Mike. Few queries
1. B/ has 2 modifiers Appositive(a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians) and participle(respected by the Spaniards) As you mentioned that Appositive NEED to be || and hence need preposition "to" in this case. IS IT SAME with PARTICIPLE modifier. I mean if a participle modifier is modifying a subject of preposition and object of preposition does not make sense then would it be correct or incorrect.
Construction i am talking is "sub. of prep" "prep" "object of prep", participle modifier
First of all, apposition is a special case of parallelism and needs to have parallel structure. Apposition also is a kind of modifier.
Most modifiers (adjective, relative pronoun phrases, participles, etc.) do not have parallel structure. Rather, they just tag on to the noun they modify as is, without any adjustment to their structure. Apposition is very special --- what's true for apposition is not true for most modifiers.
Correct: I lent my chemistry book to Maria, who is studying for her exam.
Incorrect: I lent my chemistry book to Maria, to who/whom is studying for her exam.
At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniardsvikram4689 wrote:2. If i were to make B correct whether following sentence would work OR what would be correct way. At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
As is often the case, GMAT SC incorrect answers have more than one thing wrong with them. Adding the "to" brings the apposition into parallel, correcting that mistake, but that last phrase is a trainwreck. When we see "and respected by the Spaniards", that's verb or particle crying out for matching element in parallel, and it's just not there. If the end of the sentence had been something like "... a form of ownership practiced in the pre-Columbian period and respected by the Spaniards"--- then you would have the parallelism needed. Thus, even if you toss in the "to", (B) is still incorrect.
You are analyzing logically what the modifier should modify, but on the GMAT SC, if the modifier doesn't touch what it logically should modify, it's wrong.vikram4689 wrote:3. Using the analysis you provided, All but E can be eliminated. How to eliminate E. I have read that although "that" is a restrictive modifier it can modify subject of preposition if is it clear from meaning of sentence that object of preposition does not make sense (as in my example below)
E/ "that" refers to "communal ownership of land" and NOT "land" because latter does not make sense as land cannot be "pre-columbian form ownership" ONLY one form of ownership can be equal of .
e.g. Baby came from egg of snake that was broken during earthquake. Here "that" unambiguously refers to "egg"
One of the only exceptions is when there's a vital noun phrase --- a phrase absolutely necessary to clarify the meaning of the noun. A vital noun phrase can come between a noun and its modifier.
In the phrase "communal ownership of land", the prepositional phrase "of land" is not vital --- "communal ownership" is pretty clear on its own, and "of land" merely clarifies a little more precisely. That's not a vital noun phrase, and therefore it cannot legitimately come between the noun ("communal ownership") and its modifier.
Yes, you are right, the phrase in (E) beginning with the word "that" unambiguously refers to "communal ownership." That is the ineluctable logical conclusion --- there's no doubt about that. The problem is: in (E)'s current phrasing, the grammar does not reflect the logic. Grammar must reflect the logic in every way. If grammar indicates one thing and logic indicates something else, you have a faulty sentence. That's what you have in (E).
Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any further question.
Mike
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
-
iongmat
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 5:14 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:1 members
Hi Mike, in view of your observation above, can you please explain how that in the following sentence refers to tool and not private conversation.Mike@Magoosh wrote: The problem with E, "...to communal ownership of land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards" ---- to what exactly does the word "that" refer? Here, it appears to refer to "land", but we can't say that "land" "had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership."
Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
-
vikram4689
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
- Thanked: 105 times
- Followed by:14 members
Thanks Mike, Please elaborate above quote w.r.t questionGrammar must reflect the logic in every way. If grammar indicates one thing and logic indicates something else, you have a faulty sentence. That's what you have in (E).
Also following 2 statements in your post above seem contradictory
That's not a vital noun phrase, and therefore it cannot legitimately come between the noun ("communal ownership") and its modifier.
Yes, you are right, the phrase in (E) beginning with the word "that" unambiguously refers to "communal ownership."
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button
