Sentence Correction

eagleeye wrote:

The driver of the car staying in the mansion was sleeping. This doesn't tell us whether the car was staying in the mansion or the driver. Awkward.
The driver of the car, staying in the mansion, was sleeping. This one tells us that "The driver of the car", not the car itself, was staying in the mansion. Hence we see how the commas are necessary especially when prepositional phrases are used.

Now let's look at this sentence.
The driver of the car, the one staying in the mansion, was sleeping. Do you see a problem with the sentence?
Right. It is very awkward and unnecessarily wordy. Stay away from such constructions.

The third thing is active vs passive voice usage in a modified phrase.
Look at the following sentences.
She has a drug problem. Vs .
She has the problem of drugs. Which one sounds better? Let's try one more.

He has a smoking problem. He has the problem of smoking. Do you see what's wrong? The second one is unnecessarily wordy.

sam2304 wrote: smoking habit seems awkward, habit of smoking is better. For more info on this, please go through 4th edition MGMAT SC Chapter 11, Too short pattern 1, page 211. We can collapse of-prepositional phrases to noun adjectives unless they aren't awkward, but smoking habit seems awkward to me. May be experts can throw some on this.

Mike@Magoosh wrote:Dear vk_vinayak,

I believe the point you really need to understand is the distinction between a vital vs. non-vital noun modifier. Here are two blog posts where I discuss that distinction in great detail ---
a) https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/that-vs-which-on-the-gmat/
b) https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/
Those are exactly the same links given in the above post, and your questions concern this important distinction.

vk_vinayak wrote:C. ...part of the brain, located behind the ear, can instantly ...
E. ...part of the brain, the one located behind the ear, can instantly...

In C, the modifier located behind the ear can refer to brain or part. How do we decide which one it refers to? Is it the meaning that we use to decide, or is there any rule?

The prepositional phrase "of the brain" is a vital noun modifier --- without it, we would have absolutely no idea what kind of "part" was being discussed. As a vital noun modifier, it legitimately come between a modifying phrase and the noun it modifies. As a general rule, when you have the structure:
[noun] [vital noun modifier] [another modifier]
then, in the vast majority of cases, that "other" modifier is also modifying the noun. The grammatical construction is suggestive, but you do have to employ logic.

Here, "located behind the ear" modifies "part" because it describes a part of the brain --- some parts of the brain are in front of the ear and some are behind the ear. It can't modify "brain" because we don't have one brain in front of the ear and another brain behind the ear. The grammatical structure provides a strong suggestion, but the logical meaning is the final arbiter.

vk_vinayak wrote:And, in this thread I have seen people saying that the modifier in E, the one located behind the ear, definitely better than located behind the ear, and clearly refers to 'part' instead of 'brain'. Is it correct? How so? I felt that located behind the ear is as good as the one located behind the ear and could refer to either part or brain.

As I thought I made clear in my previous post in this thread, the construction . . .
...part of the brain, the one located behind the ear, ...
is patently absurd and 100% illogical. The brain has millions of well-defined regions --- it is far more complex than, say, a calculator. A calculator has more than one part, and many calculators are smaller than the entire region of the brain behind the ear. Quite obviously there cannot be just a single "part" of the brain behind the ear. To argue for this is to fall into the trap of considering grammar rules in the abstract and blithely ignoring all logical content. People who fall into that mistake have trainwreck after trainwreck on GMAT SC questions.

vk_vinayak wrote:How in D the modifier regarded by ... energy refers to the entire preceding phrase, while in E a measure regarded... energy refers to only speed limit? Fight could also be a measure.

In this context, we are using "measure" in its legal sense --- a legal measure is something that has been enacted as law and has legal ramifications for the behavior of citizens. A speed limit is an example of a measure --- it has been enacted as a law and if a private citizen choose to disregard it, there will be direct legal consequences. An argument, especially an argument about speed limit, is itself not a measure --- the argument itself has in no way been framed into the law; it just evolves spontaneously, between different groups of private citizens. There are ultra-cautious folks who think the speed limit is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and there are libertarians who want to be allowed to drive 90 mph as an fundamental expression of their essential Constitutional freedom, but both of these are just individual citizens with their own opinions and perspectives. No law directly supports the continuation of this argument, and if the argument suddenly stopped and everyone agreed, that in and of itself would not break any law. To say that an argument is a legal measure is to suggest that lawmakers passed a law requiring people to have this argument, which is absurd. That's how we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that "measure" refers to the law, not to the argument.

Does all this make sense? Let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike

[noun] [vital noun modifier] [another modifier]
then, in the vast majority of cases, that "other" modifier is also modifying the noun. The grammatical construction is suggestive, but you do have to employ logic.