Rome

[akhpad]

Source: KAPLAN 800
In the mid-fifth century, Rome was threatened by Hunnish troops who, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated his military superiority over the weakened, recently conquered city.

A: who, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated his military superiority
B: which, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated their military superiority
C: that Attila the Hum led, who demonstrated his military superiority
D: that Attila the Hum led in demonstrated of their military superiority
E: that were led by Attila the Hum, who demonstrated his military superiority

OA: B
A, C and E are incorrect because of HIS. What about B and D?
Can WHICH refer to TROOPS? Why?

[asamaverick]

Since 'troops' is a collective noun it is fine to use 'which' as the relative pronoun here.

[tpr-becky]

which is fine for troops, it doesn't carry a plural or singular - the donuts, which were stale, had been left out all week. If you typed D correctly it is also wrong becuase you don't lead in demonstrated.

[sumanr84]

IMO : E
I donot see any problem with E. In case of E, there is no ambiguity because his is singular and can only refer to Atila the hun.

However, I am little bit suspicious about this question. The reason being how we are supposed to know that Question meant to showcase TROOPS' superiority(ans:B) instead of Atilla's(ans:E).

It seems there are 2 possible correct answers with different meaning.

[akhpad]

Lets B put into original sentence


In the mid-fifth century, Rome was threatened by Hunnish troops which, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated their military superiority over the weakened, recently conquered city.

"led by Attila the Hum" modifies to "Hunnish troops".
"which demonstrated their military superiority over the weakened, recently conquered city" modifies to "Hunnish troops".

Is it correct?

[ansumania]

should not the comma be before 'which' and not after 'which'?

If we can remove B on that basis, can't E be correct?

[tryingtocrack]

@ansumania , very valid point about the comma . IMO - E also.

However , after reading Akhilesh's example the meaning of sentence changes in E

Author is trying to tell the "superiority of troops" not "superiority of Attila "

Still confused but very good question ..

[paes]

Why E is incorrect ?

Can somebody please explain.

Between B and E, meaning of the sentence is changing : superiority of troops or superiority of Attila.

From the original choice, the meaning is not clear.

So how to eliminate E ?

[adi_800]

I get very angry after seeing these shitty questions from kaplan..
B does not have comma before which...n its OA...now since og10 days... we have been learning that which should be preceded and followed by comma when which does not appear along with any preposition...
E is perfectly OK since there are no grammatical errors in this sentence except it being a bit wordy...
Now

[SmarpanGamt]

Lets B put into original sentence


In the mid-fifth century, Rome was threatened by Hunnish troops which, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated their military superiority over the weakened, recently conquered city.

"led by Attila the Hum" modifies to "Hunnish troops".
"which demonstrated their military superiority over the weakened, recently conquered city" modifies to "Hunnish troops".

Is it correct?

Bit confusing in usage of comma after " which". Two choices dwindle " Troops" in opetion "b" and Attila " E" .Since in the begning you have given " HIS" in " RED ,B is the only option.

Any ways good question

[ansumania]

will someone pl. explain what is wrong with C?

[er_priyankajolly]

IMO : E
I donot see any problem with E. In case of E, there is no ambiguity because his is singular and can only refer to Atila the hun.

I totally agree with the above thought.
I rejected B straight away because it uses "which" without comma. Which can be used without a comma only when it come with a preposition eg "for which"

If we apply the "Essential vs Non-Essential" rule that if the information about troops is necessary then we should use that.

E is perfectly correct.Experts please respond

[troh]

will someone pl. explain what is wrong with C?

bc the anticedent is not "someone"
the whole logic seems that we have to find the most appropriate answer to the Q.

and also think about the right place of "comma".

[troh]

In the mid-fifth century, Rome was threatened by Hunnish troops who, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated his military superiority over the weakened, recently conquered city.

A: who, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated his military superiority
B: which, led by Attila the Hum, demonstrated their military superiority
C: that Attila the Hum led, who demonstrated his military superiority
D: that Attila the Hum led in demonstrated of their military superiority
E: that were led by Attila the Hum, who demonstrated his military superiority

IMO

A: who - fault
B: answer
C: Hum led, who <- ambiguous "who" position.
D: "in" -> in which Attila the Hum led
E: the troops that were led by Attlia the Hum -> the troops led by Attila the Hum : redundancy

[er_priyankajolly]

E: the troops that were led by Attlia the Hum -> the troops led by Attila the Hum : redundancy

I dont see any redundancy in E. "That were led by XXX" is modifying "troops". If you think introduction of "that" is causing the redundancy then you can have a look at the sentence below

The house that has been painted red is owned by me.