Technique - Modifers

[beater]

Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced x-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

(A) Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced x-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it,
(B) Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, having the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, a technique called proton induced x-ray emission
(C) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced x-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it,
(D) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced x-ray emission, which has the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance quickly and without destroying it,
(E) A technique that was originally developed for detecting air pollutants and has the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance quickly and without destroying the substance, called proton-induced x-ray emission,

What do you think which is referring to in (A)?
Please specify the modifier issues.

Thanks!

[pakaskwa]

In general, a modifier should be right next to the subject it is modifying.

In choice A, "which" is misplaced as it's referring to "x-ray emission". (It's actually a clause, not a modifier.)

IMO, answer is E. What's the OA?

[scoobydooby]

A seems fine

the sentence says: a technique called proton-induced x-ray emission is finding uses in X,Y and Z

modifier 1: "Originally developed for detecting air pollutants" modifies "a technique" correctly

modifier 2: "which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it" is set off within commas, and is a non restrictive modifier, it gives more info on the technique and correctly modifies"technique"

it might seem that this "which" modifies emission, but it actually modifes "technique". emission must not be considered on its own-it is part of "proton-induced x-ray emission" which is nothing but another name of this technique.

so even though "which" is closer to "emission" than "technique", it modifies "technique" correctly.

[dendude]

I agree, A is fine.

[beater]

Isn'tWhich (in A) supposed to modify the immediately preceding noun?

I understand it doesn't sound logical for which to refer to emmisions, but I'm just going by the rules. Is this sentence an exception?

[scoobydooby]

a technique (called proton-induced x-ray emission), which can

yes, "which" modifies the immediately preceding noun. but here "emission" is a part of the underlined phrase which modifies the noun "technique". the underlined phrase thus does the work of an adjective.

the immediately preceding noun is "technique". so "which" actually modifies "technique".

[pakaskwa]

Actually there's explanation on OG 11. OA is A.

This is question 105 in SC section in OG 11. Explanation is on page 710. It says,
Finally, the non-restrictive clause "which...destroy it" is correctly placed next to "emission" and set off from the rest of the sentence by a pair of commas.

Which clause here is modifying "X-ray emission", and that's the technique's name, which is the same as technique.

[piyush_nitt]

Actually there's explanation on OG 11. OA is A.

This is question 105 in SC section in OG 11. Explanation is on page 710. It says,
Finally, the non-restrictive clause "which...destroy it" is correctly placed next to "emission" and set off from the rest of the sentence by a pair of commas.

Which clause here is modifying "X-ray emission", and that's the technique's name, which is the same as technique.

Whats wrong with C then ?

[pakaskwa]

Here's the explanation on OG for choice C, it looks conflicting with choice A explanation though:

Called proton-induced X-ray emission should be placed next to a technique and should not be set off by commas; relative clause introduced by which incorrectly and illogically modifies emission.

If which clause is misplaced here, isn't it misplaced too in Choice A? Anybody?

[dendude]

Here's how I see it.
The which in A correctly modifies proton-induced x-ray emission because it is qualified by "a technique".
(A) Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced x-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it,

Though it can be argued that the which in C also correctly modifies proton-induced x-ray emission, if you look closely you will realize another mistake. The first comma offsets air pollutants as proton-induced x-ray emmission.
(C) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced x-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it,

[pakaskwa]

That makes sense. Thanks dude!

[moorthy76]

i agree with scoobydooby...

[Stacey Koprince]

Received a PM asking me to respond. This is a tough one. Several of you have explained various aspects correctly above; I'll just summarize here.

In general, a noun modifier should be placed next to the noun it modifies. "Which" indicates a noun modifier, so it should follow this rule.

There is a rare exception though - you can have a few additional words between the noun being modified and the "which" clause as long as the words in between are a direct and necessary description of the noun being modified.

Her aura of invincibility, which really irritated some people, was completely destroyed when she lost her job.

Here, "which" is modifying "aura" even though we have "of invincibility" in between. The "of" prepositional phrase is just a short modifier describing "aura" - and there's really no other place to put it.

Similiary, with "a techique called <blah blah blah>" - the "called etc" part is just a short descriptive of the word "technique," so it qualifies for this rare exception.

The trouble comes in when you separate "a technique" and "called <blah blah blah>," as in answer C. Now, the which part is technically describing "emission" and only "emission" - and the problem there is that we don't actually know what is "called proton-induced X-ray emission." Is it the technique? Or is it the air pollutants? Even though we know logically that it's the technique, structurally it seems to be the air pollutants. That's ambiguous - and ambiguity is bad. D and E have similar problems with this issue.