When a passenger aircraft crashed in the jungles near the village of Triskiti, local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane before they could be carefully examined where they had fallen, unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators that already were made difficult by the remoteness of the crash site.
A. unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators that already were made difficult by the remoteness of
B. unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators, which already were made difficult by the remoteness of
C. unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators, that had already been made difficult by the remoteness of
D. unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators, and already made difficult by the remoteness of
E. unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators, and already made difficult by the remote location of
my doubt : while i do understand that option B does make sense ,i want to know what makes A wrong .i have seen in many official questions that "that" can refer to remote nouns and as per me "that" can very well refer to "efforts". moreover there can be no ambiguity in A as "that" can never refer to "investigators"
can instructors plz explain me
thanks and regards
aditya
When a passenger aircraft crashed in the jungles near
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
- Kasia@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
- Thanked: 322 times
- Followed by:143 members
Answer A is incorrect because the clause that follows "the efforts of investigators" should not be an essential clause. This clause is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, answer B is the best choice.
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course
"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.
"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/
"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course
"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.
"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/
"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
To kasia
wow !! i totally missed this concept ,at least when i was doing this question in timed situation .
so the deal is :when every thing gets balanced in "that" and "which" in terms of referrant then we can view the problem the problem from the new angle of "essentialness" or "non essentialness" of the extended part .
thanks for giving a new angle and the aha moment !!
regards
wow !! i totally missed this concept ,at least when i was doing this question in timed situation .
so the deal is :when every thing gets balanced in "that" and "which" in terms of referrant then we can view the problem the problem from the new angle of "essentialness" or "non essentialness" of the extended part .
thanks for giving a new angle and the aha moment !!
regards
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:53 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:1 members
Hi Kasia,
Sorry, I have a small doubt here
When I solved this question I came to the essential and non essential concept. But the reason why I eliminated B was in B "which" should refers to the immediate noun before comma which I thought was "investigators". But logically "which" should refer to "efforts" and not "investigators" correct?
Please help me in understanding this...
Thanks,
Sorry, I have a small doubt here
When I solved this question I came to the essential and non essential concept. But the reason why I eliminated B was in B "which" should refers to the immediate noun before comma which I thought was "investigators". But logically "which" should refer to "efforts" and not "investigators" correct?
Please help me in understanding this...
Thanks,
If you cant explain it simply you dont understand it well enough!!!
- Genius
- Genius
- 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
The purpose of a that-modifier is to provide ESSENTIAL information that RESTRICTS the scope of the modified noun.aditya8062 wrote:To kasia
wow !! i totally missed this concept ,at least when i was doing this question in timed situation .
so the deal is :when every thing gets balanced in "that" and "which" in terms of referrant then we can view the problem the problem from the new angle of "essentialness" or "non essentialness" of the extended part .
thanks for giving a new angle and the aha moment !!
regards
Since a that-modifier provides essential information, it cannot be removed without changing the basic meaning of the sentence.
Here's A:
Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane, unintentionally thwarting THE EFFORTS THAT ALREADY WERE MADE DIFFICULT BY THE REMOTENESS OF THE CRASH SITE.
Here, the that-modifier restricts the scope of the noun EFFORTS.
The implication is that the tribesmen were thwarting not ALL of the efforts of investigators but only a PARTICULAR TYPE of effort:
efforts THAT ALREADY WERE MADE DIFFICULT BY THE REMOTENESS OF THE CRASH SITE.
Not the intended meaning.
The purpose of a which-modifier is to provide NONESSENTIAL information -- information that DOES NOT RESTRICT the scope of the modified noun.
Since a which-modifier provides nonessential information, it can be removed without changing the basic meaning of the sentence.
Here's the OA, with the non-essential which-modifier omitted:
Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane, unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators.
This is the intended meaning.
The referent for which cannot be a person.
Thus, in the OA, it's clear that which refers to efforts.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
- EducationAisle
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:42 pm
- Location: Bangalore, India
- Thanked: 91 times
- Followed by:46 members
Actually I have not come across an official question that tests this concept. Would love to hear from Mitch and Kasia if they have come across a question that tests this.
It is also interesting to read OE for #12 in OG13:
Some writers follow the convention that "which" can only be used for nonrestrictive clauses, but insistence on this rule is controversial
Though this specific comment has been made in the options that use a "which" without a preceding comma.
It is also interesting to read OE for #12 in OG13:
Some writers follow the convention that "which" can only be used for nonrestrictive clauses, but insistence on this rule is controversial
Though this specific comment has been made in the options that use a "which" without a preceding comma.
Ashish
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com
Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:
a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana
b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana
Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com
Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:
a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana
b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana
Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
I have a couple issues with the sentence that I can't resolve:GMATGuruNY wrote:The purpose of a that-modifier is to provide ESSENTIAL information that RESTRICTS the scope of the modified noun.aditya8062 wrote:To kasia
wow !! i totally missed this concept ,at least when i was doing this question in timed situation .
so the deal is :when every thing gets balanced in "that" and "which" in terms of referrant then we can view the problem the problem from the new angle of "essentialness" or "non essentialness" of the extended part .
thanks for giving a new angle and the aha moment !!
regards
Since a that-modifier provides essential information, it cannot be removed without changing the basic meaning of the sentence.
Here's A:
Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane, unintentionally thwarting THE EFFORTS THAT ALREADY WERE MADE DIFFICULT BY THE REMOTENESS OF THE CRASH SITE.
Here, the that-modifier restricts the scope of the noun EFFORTS.
The implication is that the tribesmen were thwarting not ALL of the efforts of investigators but only a PARTICULAR TYPE of effort:
efforts THAT ALREADY WERE MADE DIFFICULT BY THE REMOTENESS OF THE CRASH SITE.
Not the intended meaning.
The purpose of a which-modifier is to provide NONESSENTIAL information -- information that DOES NOT RESTRICT the scope of the modified noun.
Since a which-modifier provides nonessential information, it can be removed without changing the basic meaning of the sentence.
Here's the OA, with the non-essential which-modifier omitted:
Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane, unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators.
This is the intended meaning.
The referent for which cannot be a person.
Thus, in the OA, it's clear that which refers to efforts.
1) Doesn't the word "which" modifier the word directly in front of it? Even if investigators is the illogical referent, isn't it possible that that error was intended? Or for this instance with the phrase "efforts of investigators", does a word leading to a modifier (i.e. "that" or "which") refer directly to the noun? (in this case, does the "which" treat "efforts of investigators" as "investigators' efforts")?
2) In the main clause of the sentence, the word "they" is used twice, referring to 2 different items - tribesmen and pieces (of the broken plane). I initially interpreted that as pronoun ambiguity. Is it not ambiguous because of the locations/sequence of the pronoun references (as in the first "they" refers to the first item tribesmen and the second "they" refers to the second item pieces)?
- 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
which + plural verb must refer to nearest preceding ELIGIBLE plural noun.1) Doesn't the word "which" modifier the word directly in front of it? Even if investigators is the illogical referent, isn't it possible that that error was intended? Or for this instance with the phrase "efforts of investigators", does a word leading to a modifier (i.e. "that" or "which") refer directly to the noun? (in this case, does the "which" treat "efforts of investigators" as "investigators' efforts")?
Since which cannot serve to refer to people, only a NON-PERSON plural noun is eligible to serve as a referent for which.
OA: unintentionally thwarting the EFFORTS of investigators, WHICH already WERE made difficult by the remoteness of the crash site.
Here, the nearest non-person plural noun that precedes which were is the efforts.
Thus, the referent for which -- the EFFORTS -- is crystal clear.
OA: Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane before they could be carefully examined where they had fallen.2) In the main clause of the sentence, the word "they" is used twice, referring to 2 different items - tribesmen and pieces (of the broken plane). I initially interpreted that as pronoun ambiguity. Is it not ambiguous because of the locations/sequence of the pronoun references (as in the first "they" refers to the first item tribesmen and the second "they" refers to the second item pieces)?
Here, both the first they and the second they serve to refer to pieces.
Conveyed meaning:
Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane before THE PIECES could be carefully examined where THE PIECES had fallen.
From context, it's clear that the first they does not refer to tribesmen.
No reasonable reader would construe that the TRIBESMEN could be carefully examined.
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
-
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:42 pm
//When a passenger aircraft crashed in the jungles near the village of Triskiti, local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane before they could be carefully examined where they had fallen, unintentionally thwarting the efforts of investigators that already were made difficult by the remoteness of the crash site. //
Check the flow, here, they could be carefully examined is the verb, which got thwarted, thwarting means frustrating. What got failed? the efforts, option B, suits this, which were already made difficult is correct
Check the flow, here, they could be carefully examined is the verb, which got thwarted, thwarting means frustrating. What got failed? the efforts, option B, suits this, which were already made difficult is correct
For the second point, I slightly misread the sentence. I read it as "before they could carefully examine where they had fallen" and obviously that added to my confusion.GMATGuruNY wrote:which + plural verb must refer to nearest preceding ELIGIBLE plural noun.1) Doesn't the word "which" modifier the word directly in front of it? Even if investigators is the illogical referent, isn't it possible that that error was intended? Or for this instance with the phrase "efforts of investigators", does a word leading to a modifier (i.e. "that" or "which") refer directly to the noun? (in this case, does the "which" treat "efforts of investigators" as "investigators' efforts")?
Since which cannot serve to refer to people, only a NON-PERSON plural noun is eligible to serve as a referent for which.
OA: unintentionally thwarting the EFFORTS of investigators, WHICH already WERE made difficult by the remoteness of the crash site.
Here, the nearest non-person plural noun that precedes which were is the efforts.
Thus, the referent for which -- the EFFORTS -- is crystal clear.
OA: Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane before they could be carefully examined where they had fallen.2) In the main clause of the sentence, the word "they" is used twice, referring to 2 different items - tribesmen and pieces (of the broken plane). I initially interpreted that as pronoun ambiguity. Is it not ambiguous because of the locations/sequence of the pronoun references (as in the first "they" refers to the first item tribesmen and the second "they" refers to the second item pieces)?
Here, both the first they and the second they serve to refer to pieces.
Conveyed meaning:
Local tribesmen collected pieces of the broken plane before THE PIECES could be carefully examined where THE PIECES had fallen.
From context, it's clear that the first they does not refer to tribesmen.
No reasonable reader would construe that the TRIBESMEN could be carefully examined.
As for the first one, you explained when "which" is used correctly. I understood the rule for when to use "which", but that wasn't the question I was asking. I'm asking whether it's possible for the answer choice to intentionally use the "which" incorrectly. As in, isn't it possible that the answer choice was designed to use "which" incorrectly to modify a person instead of an object? Or would testmakers not use that tactic?