First discovered more than 30 years ago, Lina's sunbird

[RonPurewal]

I thought that after a semicolon, a complete sentence/independent clause is required instead of a noun phrase.

Could anyone explain what the usage of semicolons here?

Thanks in advance.

you can also use semicolons to separate the items in an unusually long list.

this usage is especially recommended if the list items themselves are long.
it is REQUIRED if the use of the usual commas creates ambiguity.

for instance,
"in her three grocery bags, Laura carried 3 cans of Pepsi and 2 cans of Coke; four bananas, two apples, and a pear; and 16 boxes of dinosaur-shaped pasta."
in this case, the use of semicolons is the only way to construct a sentence that properly breaks the groceries down into the contents of the 3 bags. if you just use commas, you don't know what's in which bag.

[comet]

Thank you Ron. A very clear explanation.

[RonPurewal]

Could anyone explain what the usage of semicolons here?

you can use semicolons instead of commas to separate the items in a list.

this is generally not done UNLESS
* the items in the list are really long and contain commas themselves, so that the use of commas would create a sentence that is extremely difficult to understand (as is the case here);
* there would be some sort of ambiguity if commas were used instead of semicolons.

for "normal" lists - i.e., lists in which the elements are fairly short and easy to read - there's no reason to use anything other than commas.

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

[/quote]This question primarily concerns parallel construction: the two comparable elements of the original sentence are "found" and "that resembles". As originally expressed, these elements are not structured similarly - for "that resembles" to be correct, the earlier parallel element of the sentence would have to state "that is found." Since the original sentence contains a provable error, eliminate answer choice A and ANY OTHERS ANSWER CHOICES THAT REPEAT THE ORIGINAL ERROR.
[/quote]

Would A) be correct if it said "that is found and that was resembled"?
My question is if both verbs must be in the same tense (present-present, for example)

[RonPurewal]

Would A) be correct if it said "that is found and that was resembled"?

nope. wrong for 2 reasons.

(1) IN THIS CONTEXT, the verbs have to be in the same tense, because they're describing things that appear in exactly the same context.
in other words, BOTH of these are general facts about the sunbird. therefore, they should both be expressed in the present tense (this is what we do with general facts).

(2) you can't use "resembled" in the passive voice; that's just an incorrect construction.
you have to say "X resembles Y" (active voice). as far as i know, you're not allowed to say "Y is resembled by X"
on the other hand, you HAVE to use "is found" in the passive voice here, because the bird itself is found (i.e., the bird is not finding anything, so the active voice would be inappropriate) in the philippines.

[devneeetbajaj]

Ron, I am having trouble eliminating choice E:
e. that is found in the Phillipines, resembling

The sentence would read:
A bird that is found in Phillipines, resembling a hummingbird, has colors

Can't "resembling a hummingbird" just be a verbal phrase without the need to be parellel w "that is found"? Or is it misplaced and has to be right next to the "bird" rather than "Phillipines"? I know it does not sound right, but jst trying to understand correct grammar.

[enniguy]

I'm not Ron but " ... Philippines, resembling a hummingbird, ... " sounds like Philippines is resembling a bird and not the sunbird.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, I am having trouble eliminating choice E:
e. that is found in the Phillipines, resembling

The sentence would read:
A bird that is found in Phillipines, resembling a hummingbird, has colors

Can't "resembling a hummingbird" just be a verbal phrase without the need to be parellel w "that is found"? Or is it misplaced and has to be right next to the "bird" rather than "Phillipines"? I know it does not sound right, but jst trying to understand correct grammar.

that's an incorrect use of the COMMA -ING modifier form.

that sort of modifier has very specific restrictions on its usage. for the basics (and not-so-basics), check out the following post:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/which-usage- ... tml#183920
(i don't usually cross-post from different forums, but i wrote a lot there)

[jaggi.ujjwal]

What is wrong with E? Isnt that referring to sunbird and the second that after 'and' is parallel to the first one?

[pradeepchandy]

Are the following sentences grammatically correct?

1. I like houses that are white from outside and that are red from inside.
2. I like houses that are white from outside and red from inside.
3. I like houses , white from outside and red from inside.
4. I like houses , white from outside and that are red from inside.


I think 1, 2 and 3 are grammatically correct , is 4 correct ? .

Also is the meaning of 1 , 2 and 3 same?

Can this reasoning be used to eliminate option A

[RonPurewal]

What is wrong with E? Isnt that referring to sunbird and the second that after 'and' is parallel to the first one?

check out the post directly above yours, in which i explain what is wrong with that choice.

thanks

[RonPurewal]

Are the following sentences grammatically correct?

1. I like houses that are white from outside and that are red from inside.
2. I like houses that are white from outside and red from inside.
3. I like houses , white from outside and red from inside.
4. I like houses , white from outside and that are red from inside.


I think 1, 2 and 3 are grammatically correct , is 4 correct ? .

Also is the meaning of 1 , 2 and 3 same?

Can this reasoning be used to eliminate option A

#1 and #2 are ok, although they still lack a native speaker's touch (in ways that are much too subtle to be relevant to the gmat). so, for the purposes of this test, yes, those are ok.

#4 is definitely wrong; it has bad parallelism.

i don't actually think #3 is correct, either, although i don't think this sort of thing will be tested -- i've never seen it on any official problem.
off the top of my head, the rule that i would formulate (based on examples that come to me spontaneously) would be "you can't use comma + adjective to modify the direct object of a verb".
however, i would wait until this rule is confirmed (or refuted) by an official problem before trying to learn it.

[vicksikand]

First discovered more than 30 years ago, Lina's Sunbird a four-and-a-half inch animal that is found in the Philippines and that, resembling a hummingbird ,has shimmering metallic colors on its head; a brilliant orange patch, bordered with red tufts, in the center of its breast; and a red eye.

At first "resembling a hummingbird" may seem to function as a Gerund, but that is not the case. A gerund by definition is
1. a verbal(verb functioning as a noun)
2. has to be a subject or an object in the sentence.

A valid example with a Gerund phrase:
Writing a bestseller was her only goal. Here Writing a bestseller functions as the subject.

One can be tempted to read option E as two adjectival clauses (beginning with that) and one may further want to make what follows each "that" parallel.

that is......and that,modifier,has - This may seem parallel if we can justify the odd modifier: resembling a hummingbird.

[ChrisB]

Hi,

I'm not sure what you're trying to state or ask. Can you be more clear about whether you have a question on this problem or would like us to confirm an approach you've used?

Thanks,
Chris

[vjsharma25]

Can a phrase and a clause,combined act as a modifier as is the case in the given question "....found in Phillipines and that resembles...."?I think because of this reason this choice is wrong.Basic parallelism is faulty here around "and".Is my reasoning correct?