On Earth, among the surest indications of sunspot cycles are

[tim]

Okay, first off I deleted the text of the problem because it shows up in the 12th ed OG. As for your question, this problem has nothing at all to do with the subject-verb inversion Ron was talking about earlier. The relative pronoun takes the place of the subject if necessary in the subordinate clause, so there is no inversion. And there is nothing wrong with "which" referring to a noun inside a prepositional phrase if that's the closest noun..

[wild_side]

some things wrong with c:
* the placement of 'on earth' is just as problematic as in choice a (again, the sentence seems to be saying that residents of other planets disagree with us).
* 'as seen in the rings...' is a modifier that must be placed next to the thing that it modifies, which is 'the rate at which trees grow'. the way choice c is currently written, it says that indications of sunspot cycles can be seen directly in the rings - and it also implies that sunspot cycles (instead of trees) have rings!

Sorry to revoke the thread after a long time, but i was unable to understand a part of the explanation.

I understand how E is better than C in terms of On earth at the beginning makes it sound that the evidence is held only on earth and not on other planets.

BUT i dont understand how

as seen in the rings modifies the rate at which trees grow.

the rate at which trees grow, as seen in rings it dosent make sense. is the rate visible in the rings?

sunspot cycles, as seen in rings; even though it is wrong but at least it may be logical because sunspot cycles are apparently tree rings.

Please correct.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

some things wrong with c:
* the placement of 'on earth' is just as problematic as in choice a (again, the sentence seems to be saying that residents of other planets disagree with us).
* 'as seen in the rings...' is a modifier that must be placed next to the thing that it modifies, which is 'the rate at which trees grow'. the way choice c is currently written, it says that indications of sunspot cycles can be seen directly in the rings - and it also implies that sunspot cycles (instead of trees) have rings!

Sorry to revoke the thread after a long time, but i was unable to understand a part of the explanation.

I understand how E is better than C in terms of On earth at the beginning makes it sound that the evidence is held only on earth and not on other planets.

BUT i dont understand how

as seen in the rings modifies the rate at which trees grow.

the rate at which trees grow, as seen in rings it dosent make sense. is the rate visible in the rings?

sunspot cycles, as seen in rings; even though it is wrong but at least it may be logical because sunspot cycles are apparently tree rings.

Please correct.
Thanks.

i agree with your basic premise here -- i.e., that "the rate at which trees grow" is not something that is, in a very direct, literal sense, visible in tree rings.
however, the non-underlined part of the sentence contains "as seen in tree rings", so you have to decide: most closely, WHAT is visible in tree rings?
basically, there are two choices here:
(1) the rate at which trees grow is visible in the rings;
(2) the sunspot cycles themselves are visible in the rings.

although neither of these is literally 100% true -- neither a rate nor a cycle is literally something that you can see with your eyes -- there is no question that #1 is much closer to the literal truth than is #2.
i.e., the tree rings are a direct function of the trees' growth rate, so #1 is not that far off. by contrast, while the sunspot cycles may be an indirect cause of the tree rings, they are nowhere near as intimately connected to the rings as the trees' growth rate itself is.

[vjsharma25]

In this question how do I decide between A/E. I understand that Rate That is not GREAT but even surest indications on Earth of sunspot ( This means that a different earth exists that belongs to Sunspot cycles).

I have a question,which the very first poster has asked but its not been answered yet.

I rejected option E on the basis of " Earth of sunspot cycles".This is in correct answer choice but I want to know why this construction not producing any ambiguity? Just because other things are correct in this option,so should we assume that this kind of construction is also correct?

[jnelson0612]

In this question how do I decide between A/E. I understand that Rate That is not GREAT but even surest indications on Earth of sunspot ( This means that a different earth exists that belongs to Sunspot cycles).

I have a question,which the very first poster has asked but its not been answered yet.

I rejected option E on the basis of " Earth of sunspot cycles".This is in correct answer choice but I want to know why this construction not producing any ambiguity? Just because other things are correct in this option,so should we assume that this kind of construction is also correct?

Actually, this has been discussed. Go back and read Ron's post, which is the fourth post in the discussion.

[s.ashwin.rao]

Can anyone explain why B is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

Can anyone explain why B is wrong?

among the surest indications of sunspot cycles are ... the rate of tree growth
subject-verb disagreement; the verb ("are") is plural, but the subject ("rate") is singular.

note that this is a backward construction, with the verb preceding the subject. the error here is the same error that exists in the sentence "There is two cars in the driveway" (although in that example it's the verb, not the noun, that is singular).

[xyin]

Hey, Ron!

what kind of role does "As" play here?? Why there is no subject in the "as" phrase?
Can u give me a similar example about "As", as this question does?
"as seen in the rings visible in the cross sections of their trunks."

Muchas Gracias!

[tim]

you could make up examples of this all day:

"Ron is an excellent GMAT instructor, as evidenced by his remarkable forum posts."

[patelbhavesh_09]

59. On Earth, among the surest indications of sunspot cycles are believed to be the rate that trees grow, as seen in the rings visible in the cross sections of their trunks.

A. On Earth, among the surest indications of sunspot cycles are believed to be the rate that trees grow
B. On Earth, among the surest indications of sunspot cycles are, it is believed, the rate of tree growth
C. On Earth, the rate at which trees grow is believed to be among the surest indications of sunspot cycles
D. Among the surest indications on Earth of sunspot cycles, believed to be the tree growth rate
E. Among the surest indications on Earth of sunspot cycles is believed to be the rate at which trees grow


can we eliminate B and D because it contains "tree" and not "trees", because it is given in non-underline part that "the cross sections of their trunks."

[jnelson0612]

can we eliminate B and D because it contains "tree" and not "trees", because it is given in non-underline part that "the cross sections of their trunks."

Good catch. Yes, I think you have to have "trees" since "their trunks" is in the non-underlined portion.

[saintjingjing]

you could make up examples of this all day:

"Ron is an excellent GMAT instructor, as evidenced by his remarkable forum posts."

En, I know that "as + verbed" as modifer in this point. But how can I distinguish " as xxx." as modifer, and "as xxx." as conj , i mean "lead a sentence" (like "as + (subject =omit)+ xxxx")?

in fact, about this SC, I have a question --->
why I can not treat as seen in rings----->as (rate is=omit) seen in rings.. ?,or why have to treat it as a modifer?

[saintjingjing]

okay,

[RonPurewal]

In fact, I am puzzled about the usage of "noun, comma+ as +verb ed/ ing" like in this SC. can you tell me, thanks

i don't really know what you are asking. let's clarify:

* which answer choice(s)?

* what is your problem with it? (i.e., what do you think it should be doing, vs. what is it actually doing?)

[thanghnvn]

pls, help.

comma +doing, refers to the subject of preceding clause

I learn gmat, making my English better

comma +ed (past particple of verb) , as inhere, refers to the nearest noun in the preceding clause, not to the subject of preceding clause.

Am I right?