OG (10th ed) - SC - #43 ) Multiple Modifiers -How to arrange

[GMATMadeEasy]

43. In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world.

(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes

(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes

(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia

(D) Australia was what was the antipodes

(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes

Correct answer is A .

i infer from correct answer that the last two modifiers (the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world. ) or appositive more precisely are correctly used. But I am not sure of reasoing that can be used to explain.

If I turn the question this way,

The opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world, the antipodes is knows as Austalia today.

, is the usage of modifier is correct ? How and Why ? I hope some experts can throw their advise on this.

[gmat_perfect]

43. In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world.

(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes

(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes

(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia

(D) Australia was what was the antipodes

(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes

Correct answer is A .

i infer from correct answer that the last two modifiers (the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world. ) or appositive more precisely are correctly used. But I am not sure of reasoing that can be used to explain.

If I turn the question this way,

The opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world, the antipodes is knows as Austalia today.

, is the usage of modifier is correct ? How and Why ? I hope some experts can throw their advise on this.

First know the meaning:

Antipodes:

complete opposite, opposing side, opposite pole
Australia and New Zealand (British Informal)

Now read the sentence as follows:

In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world.

The two appositives--"The opposite pole to civilization" and "an obscure .....world"--have said about "antipodes".

First: The opposite pole is the definition.
Second: an obscure...world is the appositive.

See similar sentence:

I have read Gitanjoly, a collection of poems, a nice work of Tagore.

Here, Gitanjoly has been defined by "a collection of poems'', and again it has been said that gitanjoly is a nice work of Tagore.

I have tried. It may come in handy.
Thanks for a good question.

[uwhusky]

I believe what you got here are two prepositional phrases acting like adverbial modifiers. I don't think you'll see this often. Good thing about this question is that others have pretty big errors to eliminate.

[kvcpk]

I believe what you got here are two prepositional phrases acting like adverbial modifiers. I don't think you'll see this often. Good thing about this question is that others have pretty big errors to eliminate.

Uwhusky,

Can you please list out the errors in other options?

[uwhusky]

(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes

(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes
"there" is ambiguous, and "it" is ambiguous.

(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia
"it" is ambiguous"

(D) Australia was what was the antipodes
X was Y was Z?

(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes
"had been" is the wrong tense, and I think it also suffers the same issue as D. X was Y had been known as Z.

[kvcpk]

(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes

(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes
"there" is ambiguous, and "it" is ambiguous.

(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia
"it" is ambiguous"

(D) Australia was what was the antipodes
X was Y was Z?

(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes
"had been" is the wrong tense, and I think it also suffers the same issue as D. X was Y had been known as Z.

Thank you!!

Quick question:
"Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."
I believe this construction is right.

What you say?

[uwhusky]

Shoot, I overlooked the "wh-clause".

It's almost like the "that-clause", which is basically a clause filling the noun phrase slot.

So I take it back, I think E works if the tense is changed.

In your example:

"Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."

"what" is both a subclause indicator and the subject of the subclause.

This is an interesting question...a good one for me to look up more information.

[uwhusky]

Plus I think WH-clauses are not necessary for this context, because the context isn't asking the question.

"What was the antipodes?" "Australia was the antipodes."

"What was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam?" "Terrorism was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam."

Good question kvcpk! It highlighted something I didn't know enough about!

[GMATMadeEasy]

First know the meaning:

Antipodes:
complete opposite, opposing side, opposite pole
Australia and New Zealand (British Informal)

Now read the sentence as follows:

In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimagin­able place that was considered the end of the world.

The two appositives--"The opposite pole to civilization" and "an obscure .....world"--have said about "antipodes".

First: The opposite pole is the definition.
Second: an obscure...world is the appositive.

See similar sentence:

I have read Gitanjoly, a collection of poems, a nice work of Tagore.

Here, Gitanjoly has been defined by "a collection of poems'', and again it has been said that gitanjoly is a nice work of Tagore.

I have tried. It may come in handy.
Thanks for a good question.

@ GMAT_Perfect
Thanks for good explanation, it helps.
@ rest of you : Good explanation of other incorrect answer choices. For more info , you can check this on Manhattan forum, one of the best places to have wonderful explanations.

Let's stay focused on modifier issue, the objective being the original intention of posting the question .

Back to GMAT_Perfect :

1. Do you have more real examples as you mentioned it has helped ?
2. The modified sentence ,which I have written, is correct ?

so your structure comes down to subject verb object/Noun , modifier1, modifier2

This works if modifier1 is a definition and modifier 2 an appositive ?

we can PM some of the experts to know the authentic opinion to deal with multiple modifiers?

[kvcpk]

Plus I think WH-clauses are not necessary for this context, because the context isn't asking the question.

"What was the antipodes?" "Australia was the antipodes."

"What was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam?" "Terrorism was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam."

Good question kvcpk! It highlighted something I didn't know enough about!

Thanks Uwhusky!! Probably I am pouring questions. But I will put one more.

IMO we dont need a context of question to use What clause.

Indians delivered what was expected out of them.

This is what was expected from the Indians.

What you say?

[uwhusky]

It's beyond me. The topic we're discussing in my opinion is pretty complex, so I think we will need an expert on this subject. OP wants to focus on the modifiers, so maybe if we want to continue this topic, we should create our own post for this.

[kvcpk]

It's beyond me. The topic we're discussing in my opinion is pretty complex, so I think we will need an expert on this subject. OP wants to focus on the modifiers, so maybe if we want to continue this topic, we should create our own post for this.

I agree. Let us not disturb the flow of original poster.
Will create another thread and let u know.

[GMATMadeEasy]

An example when multiple modifier is wrong :

Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current, because he was excited with the prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls for producing electric power, he predicted in the mid-1890's that electricity generated at Niagara would one day power the streetcars of London and the streetlights of Paris.

(A) Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current, because he was excited with the prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls for producing electric power, he
(B) The prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls to produce electric power was exciting to Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current, and so he
(C) Excited about the prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls to produce electric power, Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current,
(D) Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current, excited about the prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls for the production of electric power and
(E) The inventor of alternating current, excited with the prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls for producing of electric power, Nikola Tesla

Look at the option E
The inventor of alternating current, excited with the prospects of harnessing Niagara Falls for producing of electric power, Nikola Tesla predicted in the mid-1890's that electricity generated at Niagara would one day power the streetcars of London and the streetlights of Paris.

Couls someone explain why this one is incorrect ? I undesratnd and will not choose it but want to have an indepth understanding so I wont miss it ever.

[uwhusky]

I'll take a stab here and maybe someone can point out how my thought process is off on this one.

"The inventor of alternating current" is an appositive modifying Niokla Telsa, thus it should be next to the noun it is modifying. The original example are both appositives, whereas this example, one of the modifiers is an adverbial modifier.

So in my understanding, appositive should always touch the noun it is modifying, unless in the above example, two appositives following one another.

[golantrevize]

"for producing OF electric power" is wrong usage !