Fraternal Twins

[gbyhats]

Hi Manhattan Instructors ;)

Two questions, if I can?

Q1: Can I interpret "namely that..." as an "absolute phrase"?
(I will explain what I mean by "absolute phrase" in a minute)

--

Lots colors incoming, I'm sorry... I thought coloration will make comparison obvious

--

Thus the sentence's structure becomes:

noun + verb + noun, noun.

That some fraternal twins resemble each other greatly while others look quite dissimilar (noun) highlights (verb) an interesting and often overlooked feature of fraternal-twin pairs (noun), namely that they vary considerably on a spectrum of genetic relatedness (noun).

(explaining the term "absolute phrase") the orange-colored noun is an absolute phrase, which act as an additional explanation for previous noun.

Absolute phrase seems a common in GMAT:

1.
Yellow jackets (noun) number (verb) among the 900 or so species of the world’s social wasps (noun), wasps that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers (noun).

[link:http://tinyurl.com/oauv8sj]

2.
In laboratory rats, a low dose of aspirin (noun) usually suffices (verb) to block production of thromboxane (noun), a substance that promotes blood clotting, but not seriously interfering with the production of prostacyclin, which prevents clotting (noun).

[link:http://tinyurl.com/oszh6wp]

--

If my reasoning is true, then "namely that..." must be somewhat different.

Normally we don't see "that" is used to introduce a non-essential clause (I mean -- "Comma + that" modifier).

But "namely that" prove OK (according to "OA is always right" rule)

--

Q2: What are the other uses of "with" (when "with" is used as modifier seperated by comma)?

As far as I know, there are two ways of using it:

1. show possession
-->e.g. With a strong longing for vacation, I canceled my future GMAT test.

2. show time concurrence
-->e.g. http://tinyurl.com/nrtlgx2

--

And the last link (http://tinyurl.com/nrtlgx2) also re-direct to what Ron talked about:

I have seen few responses from your side in which Official answer starts with "With" and you admitted that this is new learning for you.I do not have the links, else I would have given it for your reference.Said that, I'll keep in mind what you have said.

i vaguely recollect something like that, but i don't think that any of those problems were from OG or gmat prep.

[RonPurewal]

the colors are helpful.

If my reasoning is true, then "namely that..." must be somewhat different.

"namely" (like "specifically", "particularly", etc.) is an adverb, so it doesn't figure into this analysis.

"that they vary considerably on a spectrum of genetic relatedness" is another noun, EXACTLY like "that xxxxx" at the start of the sentence. so, your analysis works.

incidentally, the parallelism between these two facts ("that xxxx", "that yyyy") is a plus.
although parallelism is not strictly necessary here, it's definitely better to write those facts in the same way than to write them in different ways.

[RonPurewal]

Q2: What are the other uses of "with" (when "with" is used as modifier seperated by comma)?

this is a reasonable question, but, unfortunately, it's the kind of question that's impossible for any normal human being to answer, because our brains don't work like databases. ("What are the ways in which builders use rectangles?" "What are the verbs that start with 'T'?" etc.)

the best you can do here is to do exactly what you're doing--namely, to note instances as you see them.

[gbyhats]

Thank you for your replies Ron!

incidentally, the parallelism between these two facts ("that xxxx", "that yyyy") is a plus.
although parallelism is not strictly necessary here, it's definitely better to write those facts in the same way than to write them in different ways.

Gotcha!

this is a reasonable question, but, unfortunately, it's the kind of question that's impossible for any normal human being to answer, because our brains don't work like databases. ("What are the ways in which builders use rectangles?" "What are the verbs that start with 'T'?" etc.)

the best you can do here is to do exactly what you're doing--namely, to note instances as you see them.

Haha, I'm sorry... I'm too greedy to leave you a mission impossible. I know what you mean.

[RonPurewal]

ok. if i could answer that question, i certainly would.

interestingly, it also seems impossible (to me, anyway) to find any decent answer to that question with a search engine.

that would actually make a fun game-- "try to make up questions that can't be answered by googling".

[gbyhats]

interestingly, it also seems impossible (to me, anyway) to find any decent answer to that question with a search engine.

Haha, yeah! Google is so powerful that it generates a lot of "wait...thank you but I probably don't need this" information ("Amazon.com: Manhattan GMAT prep", "Manhattan prep refund policy", "Career at Manhattan GMAT", etc)

[RonPurewal]

those ^^ are probably sponsored results.

anyway... if you have further questions about the problem in this thread, fire away.

[gmatkiller_24]

here are some splits.

* "namely" must be used either before a noun or before a noun phrase / clause.
you can't use it directly before an independent clause.
because of this principle, you can't say "namely they vary...". however, "namely that they vary..." and "namely considerable variation" are both fine.
this kills (a) and (e).

* "the fact of X doing Y" is universally incorrect.
this kills (a).

* the sentence openers starting with "with" are incorrect. to work properly, they'd have to be followed by a subject that's actually "with" those things.
example: with five all-state players in its backfield, ballard high looks to shut down opposing offenses completely --> this makes sense, because ballard high actually has five all-state players in its backfield, thus justifying the use of "with". there's no corresponding sense of possession / belonging here.
this kills (c) and (d).

* the structure of choice (e) indicates that "this fact" is something other than the cited fact about fraternal twins' resemblance.
that kills (e).

* "it" is a pronoun with no antecedent in (c). (by contrast, in (d), "it" is fine because it's part of the special construction "it is a fact that...", which behaves in the same manner as constructions such as "it is surprising that...").

--

the correct answer is (b).

make sure that you understand that "that X does Y" is a noun clause, and can function as a noun; indeed, it's the subject of the sentence in the correct answer choice.

Hi, Ron.
I got a doubt here. You say that " it is a fact that" in choice D
"it" acts as an placeholder → it is surprising that I see you here = That I see you here is surprising

but I think here， it is a fact that is a emphatic structure
since we can remove it is ... that without altering the sentence‘ structure and meaning → a fact highlights an interesting and ....

like example： “ it is Mary who kills the boy” → Mary kills the boy

in addition to that， I think the “it” here in choice D also didn't make sense with the opening modifier starting with ”with“

Thanks for you time！

[RonPurewal]

honestly, i have no idea what you are asking here. (in fact, i'm not even sure that you are asking a question.)

please clarify, thanks.

[DiJ92]

Dear Ron

In choice c, with some fraternal twins resembing each other greatly and others looking quite dissimilar, it highlights an interesting and often overlooked feature of fraternal-twin pairs, namely considerable variation on a spectrum of genetic relatedness.

even through i know that this choice is incorrect, i have a question： does the word “variation” can modify the word “feature”? in other word, can "considerrable variation..." logically explain what is the interesting and often overlooked feature？

thank you

[RonPurewal]

sure, that's perfectly logical. nothing wrong with that part.

[DiJ92]

Dear Ron

In choice c, with some fraternal twins resembing each other greatly and others looking quite dissimilar, it highlights an interesting and often overlooked feature of fraternal-twin pairs, namely considerable variation on a spectrum of genetic relatedness.

even through i know that this choice is incorrect, i have a question： does the word “variation” can modify the word “feature”? in other word, can "considerrable variation..." logically explain what is the interesting and often overlooked feature？

thank you

Sincerely thank you

[douyang]

Read here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tml#p49622

Is D incorrect because of the use of pronoun in "it is a fact that XXX"?
According to your posts about "it", it seems that "it is a fact that XXX" here belongs to the third type of "it" that DO NOT have to stand for nouns:
Correct example in your post: It + was my own brother + who committed the crime.
This problem: It + is a fact + that highlights an interesting and often overlooked feature.


On the other note, I eliminated D because I thought "with some fraternal twins resembling each other ...." cannot modify "it is a fact" (illogical/no connection). Am I correct on this?

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

nope. doesn't fit that template. look at how the meaning works—it's essential.

It was my own brother who committed the crime means exactly the same thing as My own brother committed the crime.
the difference is purely one of style/emphasis. since neither style nor rhetoric is tested, you can regard these two sentences as identical.

THIS sentence (in the problem), on the other hand, is NOT A fact highlights xxx. (a random fact?)

rather, this sentence is TRYING to have the same structure as...
Hewitt's Conceptual Physics is a book that highlights the intuitive aspects of introductory physics.
--> It is a book that highlights the intuitive aspects of introductory physics. (if the book has already been mentioned)
in this structure 'it' is a normal pronoun, and 'that highlights...' is just modifying the word 'book'.

[CrystalSpringston]

[quote="RonPurewal"]here are some splits.


* the sentence openers starting with "with" are incorrect. to work properly, they'd have to be followed by a subject that's actually "with" those things.
example: with five all-state players in its backfield, ballard high looks to shut down opposing offenses completely --> this makes sense, because ballard high actually has five all-state players in its backfield, thus justifying the use of "with". there's no corresponding sense of possession / belonging here.
this kills (c) and (d).


Hi Ron,
I have a question about the "with" structure you mentioned.
I remember that if "with" comes before the main sentence, it describes some sort of precipitating circumstance.
With a few bidders pushing up the price into the hundreds of thousands, the art quickly became unaffordable for all but the richest people at the auction.

You said it has to be followed by a subject that's actually "with" those things.
For the example I gave above, whether the subject "art" is "with"a few bidders pushing up the price into the hundreds of thousands? I have difficulty in understanding it.


Thank you.