More than 300 rivers drain into

[RichaChampion]

Thanks Sir.

Why E is wrong?

when you have an INITIAL MODIFIER THAT'S NOT A CLAUSE (i.e., it doesn't have its own subject and verb), then it must modify the immediately following noun.

example:
coming home from school, the wind blew me off my bike. --> INCORRECT, because the implication is that the wind itself was "coming home from school".
coming home from school, i was blown off my bike by the wind. --> correct (even though the passive voice is used).

--

same problem in choice (e), which implies that lake baikal itself is somehow "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined".
that doesn't make sense.
the above rule is completely rigid, too; it doesn't allow for the modifier to be used in any other way.

Hi Ron,

I found a prep question that may not follow the rule you mention above, could you help me explain it. the immediately following 'initiated...' is five centuries, and I supposed that 'five centuries' should be replaced by 'project SETI'?

Thanks a lot

[redacted]

[RonPurewal]

read here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

i redacted the problem you posted, because it's from an OG supplement, and we can't host OG problems here. but, the information at that link will cover your question.

[RichaChampion]

read here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

i redacted the problem you posted, because it's from an OG supplement, and we can't host OG problems here. but, the information at that link will cover your question.

I understand sir, but I didn't post that questions some one else did in between the discussion. thanks for that Link.

[RonPurewal]

ok.

[NehaM981]

[redacted]

[RonPurewal]

please do not post random problems that have nothing to do with the problem in this thread! thank you.

if you have a question about a DIFFERENT problem...

• FIRST, search the forum for EXISTING threads on that problem;

• if you FIND an existing thread, post your question(s) ON THE EXISTING THREAD;

• if you don't, create a new thread (in the appropriate folder, with a source citation if necessary).

thank you.

[NehaM981]

hi

it's like this:
Last month I read 25 books, more than twice as many as my wife.


Is more than in this case modifying the entire preceding clause ??

Thanks
Neha

[RonPurewal]

in that case ^^ "more than twice as many..." describes the number of books.

[NehaM981]

hi

Then how can me decide when it is describing the entire clause and when it is defining the closest noun ??

Thanks
Neha

[RonPurewal]

there will always be enough context to make that clear.

[michellew905]

Hey Ron,
"the first is an appositive modifier; these modifiers have considerable flexibility, and can be taken to refer either to a noun or to an entire clause."
However I remember in your video, you described Appositive in the structure of Noun+modifier
and if the noun is concrete ( in this case LAKES?) it should modify the proceeding NOUN? why in this case the entire clause and how do you recognise it as an appositive

Thankyou

[RonPurewal]

hi, you must be looking at really old posts and/or really old videos (probably at least 6 years old, if not older).

back then, i used to google the names of these structures, thinking i was being "helpful" by using them. but now i realize that i was actually doing the worst thing i could have possibly done -- e.g., i was creating extra complexity where none actually exists.

DO NOT EVER worry about "grammar terms"!
they can't help you solve the problems!
...but they CAN make easy things seem really hard, and make simple things seem really complicated!

__

here, all you have to know is ...
"that sort of thing can describe a noun that's in front of it."
"that sort of thing can ALSO describe the ENTIRE IDEA of the WHOLE SENTENCE in front of it."

...and that's it.
if you see one of these modifiers, and it's doing EITHER of these things, then it's ok.

[LinnetJ834]

You're reading the last part of the sentence in A incorrectly. That final component, starting with "more...", refers to "water," not all the way back to "Lake Baikal." As a result, A is perfectly okay.

E is wrong for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we're sandwiching the subject of the sentence between two modifiers. Furthermore, by misplacing the "more than..." modifier, we have obscured the intended meaning of that phrase.

You mentioned two things that are wrong with option E, can you please elaborate? What is wrong if the subject is sandwiched between two modifiers? How is the intended meaning of the phrase obscured by misplacing "more than..."

Thanks!
Linnet.

[RonPurewal]

there's nothing wrong with having modifiers both before and after something.

__

the modifier as used in E is WRONG.
"More than all the North American Great Lakes combined" —> obviously, this must describe a numerical quantity of water. (in this particular sentence, that quantity is "more than 20 percent of xxxx")

...but, this modifier is attached to "lake baikal", and not to any word/phrase describing a numerical quantity of water.
so, in other words, we have a modifier that's trying to say that A LAKE is "more than" something else. that's nonsense.