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

Redeem

Modifier

Expert replies
by yellowho » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:20 am
Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies-less than those killed by bee stings.

a. movies-less than those
b. movies-fewer than have been
c. movies, which is less than those
d. movies, a number lower than the people
e. movies, fewer than the ones

Can someone explain the structure of this sentence?

"Only seven people this century...shark" (main clause)
COMMA+"the man....movies" (Appositive to "shark")
DASH+"fewer than have been...stings" (modifier seven people)


Structure: Main clause, modifier of an item in the main clause, modifier of the subject of the main clause.

1) Is this the right way of thinking about this structure?
2) Can the last modifier be that far away from the intended item?
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by HSPA » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:11 am
a. movies-less than those
b. movies-fewer than have been
c. movies, which is less than those
d. movies, a number lower than the people
e. movies, fewer than the ones
Join the discussion

by gmat_perfect » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:06 am
yellowho wrote:Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies-less than those killed by bee stings.

a. movies-less than those
b. movies-fewer than have been
c. movies, which is less than those
d. movies, a number lower than the people
e. movies, fewer than the ones

2) Can the last modifier be that far away from the intended item?
Yes, it can be.

Look the "the man-eater of the movies" is just a non-essential modifier (NEM). It means that we can eliminate this NEM without losing the grammatical accuracy of the sentence.

Again, a single dash has been used before the second modifier, which has helped to modify the subject of the clause. If COMMA were used, it can be messy.

I would request you to read the following two things in details:

1. Use of single dash. [read some sentences from nytimes, WSJ, and Washingtonpost.]
2. Read the type of modifier.

Thanks.
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:08 pm
Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies-less than those killed by bee stings.

Can be rewriiten as by ignoring the fillers:

Only seven people have been killed, a number lower than the people killed by bee stings. (option D)

a number lower than the people modifies the subject seven people.
Join the discussion

by Jim@Grockit » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:32 am
gmatmachoman wrote:Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies-less than those killed by bee stings.

Can be rewriiten as by ignoring the fillers:

Only seven people have been killed, a number lower than the people killed by bee stings. (option D)

a number lower than the people modifies the subject seven people.
Hmm. I wouldn't have chosen that, as it renames "people" as "a number."
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:41 am
So is it OA is D, I feel it should be E.

a. movies-less than those : less than not appropeiate for such comparison
c. movies, which is less than those : which referring to movie, nonsensical.
d. movies, a number lower than the people : Issue as number vs people
e. movies, fewer than the ones : coudn't see much issue except use of "one's" not consistent.
b. movies-fewer than have been : have been?

Jim@Grockit wrote:
gmatmachoman wrote:Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, the man-eater of the movies-less than those killed by bee stings.

Can be rewriiten as by ignoring the fillers:

Only seven people have been killed, a number lower than the people killed by bee stings. (option D)

a number lower than the people modifies the subject seven people.
Hmm. I wouldn't have chosen that, as it renames "people" as "a number."
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Join the discussion

by nikhilsrl » Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:45 am
IMO E
Join the discussion

• Page 1 of 1