In Hungary, as in much of Eastern Europe

[phuonglink]

i've got what you mean Ron. Thank you for a very concise explanation on "proportion".

[RonPurewal]

i've got what you mean Ron. Thank you for a very concise explanation on "proportion".

sure thing

[lockebkbe]

hi John,
is choice C makes run-on error with "many of them" instead of "many of whom"
i've seen your explantion on "many of whom" v.s"many of them" via this link. Did i miss something? kindly explain plz
laos-has-a-land-area-t5749.html

[RonPurewal]

hi John,
is choice C makes run-on error with "many of them" instead of "many of whom"

first off --
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers -- note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, difference in your way of thinking.

so, the answer to this question is: no, this is not a run-on sentence; it's an officially correct answer, so it can't be.

--

i've seen your explantion on "many of whom" v.s"many of them" via this link. Did i miss something? kindly explain plz
laos-has-a-land-area-t5749.html

the run-on sentence in that example is a run-on because "many of them" is followed by a VERB, thus creating a complete second sentence after the comma.
the issue is not the words "many of them" by themselves; the issue is the fact that that example (unlike the example in this thread) actually tries to splice together two complete sentences with a comma.
you'll note that the correct answer to the current problem doesn't do that; "many of them", in the current problem, is not followed by a verb.

[lockebkbe]

.

[lockebkbe]

Thank you for the way you guide us to think and the very clear explantion for the confusing concept i've confronted. Happy new year Ron

[jnelson0612]

Thank you everyone.

[methevoid]

Hi Instructors,

Well although that is very right for us to not question the right answers, but can you please help us understand the sentence structure of the correct answer C -

Doubt 1 - in the last phrase - "them" in many of them refers to women who are part of the middle modifier.
what learning does this give me in my Pronoun referent notes?

Secondly if i ignore the middle modifier an overwhelming proportion of women work the sentence does not make any sense. As far as we have studied any modifier caught between commas is NON Essential, why doesn't this theory works here?

Thank you so much instructors for clearing the doubts.

[violetwind]

choice (a) should be an easy elimination. you can never use "which" to refer to human beings. this principle has zero exceptions.

Ron, a quick question: Can which refer to the word "population"?
for example, Among all the nations in the world, India has the second biggest polulation ,which is growing most rapidly now.

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Can which refer to the word "population"?

yes, it can.

[violetwind]

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Thanks!

sure

[aps_asks]

Sorry for opening this thread again ...But just wanted to confirm the following with respect to answer choice 3)


......,many of them in.....

The part after the comma is a subordinate clause and does result in a run on sentence , right ?

[RonPurewal]

Sorry for opening this thread again ...But just wanted to confirm the following with respect to answer choice 3)


......,many of them in.....

The part after the comma is a subordinate clause and does result in a run on sentence , right ?

first --
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

--

no, that is not a subordinate clause. a clause needs a verb; that construction has no verb.

instead, it's a type of construction called an "absolute phrase".
(use this term to google the construction, but don't try very hard to remember it -- what matters is how the construction works, not what it is called.)

[aps_asks]

Thanks Ron!