SC: Fossils of the arm

[RonPurewal]

^^ you're right. (technically it's possible that this one particular sloth was "the earliest known mammal" -- after all, they haven't found the remains of any older animal -- but that's pretty clearly not the intended meaning.)

[charmanineW924]

Thanks, I understand.
I suppose that E is wrong because of the "which". Is it correct?

if you eliminate the intervening modifier, you get "the sloth, which ... was dated at 34m years old".

this is wrong. it's not the sloth that has been dated at that age, it's the fossils.

so yes, this "which" modifier is incorrect.

hi, ron, you mentioned in the page 4 of this thread that "which" can modify the first NOUN in the"NOUN of the noun" phrase that precedes it . See #29 in OG13 (the "Emily Dickinson" problem)

so same logic,in E, "which" modifier can modify fossils, but this modifier has agreement problem.

is this thinking ok?

thanks a lot.

I have the same quetion .In the earlier post , you said "which" in E is wrong ,but I think it can modify "fossils"

" In formal American usage, though, "which" should ALWAYS be preceded by a comma (unless it's part of "in which", "of which", etc.)
In other words, every formal American usage of "which" should look like your #1. " you mean ,here, in E "which" without comma can also modify "noun + prep+noun" ?

If "which " can modify "fossils" , is the sentence "which , found in ... , was dated at..." right ? I mean , “found in...” modify the which ,is it OK?

[RonPurewal]

ON THIS EXAM, if you see a 'which' modifier without a comma, do not pick that choice. it will be incorrect.

(this does not apply to 'in which', 'of which', etc. those kinds of things can be used either with or without commas.)

[MdAbuAsad]

what's probably an easier way to eliminate the same choice is to realize that you can't block off a modifier with a comma on only one side. modifiers should be blocked off either with commas on both sides (nonessential modifiers) or with commas on neither side (essential modifiers).
in that choice, "found in Puerto Rico in 1991" is blocked off with a comma on the right, but not on the left. bad news.

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands.
in the above sentence there are two commas before and after of modifier, but why did you say that there are just one comma in the right, not on the left. also you said 'bad news'. Actually i did not get the BOLD sentence on the above.

another question:
if i want to remove the modifier from the sentence, should i remove both commas (before and after of COMMA) to legitimate the sentence?
after removing the modifier we get:
Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands.
Fossils of the arm of a sloth have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands.
is it the right sentence?

Also, is it necessary to have COMMA before and after of found in Puerto Rico in 1991

also, in option C, if the verb "was" has been changed to "were" will it be correct sentence?
Thanks Ron...

[MdAbuAsad]

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.

A. sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of
B. sloth, that they found in Puerto Rico in 1991, has been dated at 34 million years old, thus making it the earliest mammal known on
C. sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was dated at 34 million years old, making this the earliest known mammal of
D. sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on
E. sloth which, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was dated at 34 million years old, made the sloth the earliest known mammal of

in the question, sloth is inside of preposition (of). In A and B, there is a pronoun 'it' and in C, the pronoun is 'this'. Here, A,B,and C should be cross out because these option used pronoun. There should be used noun (sloth) because sloth is the object of preposition.

we should not use any pronoun (e.g., it, this), if the NOUN of this pronoun used inside of preposition (e.g., of), we have to use this NOUN (sloth) directly like in D and E, is it right?

[RonPurewal]

i don't know where you're getting this "rule" from... but, nope. that's not a real rule.

this is the sort of thing you can disprove VERY quickly and easily, just by opening up your OG and flipping through the first few SC problems.
13th ed #7 / 2016 ed #11 / 2017 ed #678
(can't reproduce here)
you have "of X", and then there's an "it" that clearly refers to "X".

__

in any case... don't make simple things complicated! don't make easy things hard!

with PRONOUNS, this is basically all you have to think about:
• what does the pronoun "want" to stand for?
• is that thing a NOUN?
• if it's a noun, does it match the pronoun (in terms of singular/plural)?

if those last two are "yes" and "yes"... the pronoun is fine.
end of story.

when things are simple... keep them simple!

[NehaM981]

hi

If the verb-ed modifier placed after a clause and a comma , then does the verb-ed modifier with a comma modify the nearest noun or the entire clause ??

Thanks
Neha

[RonPurewal]

hi

If the verb-ed modifier placed after a clause and a comma , then does the verb-ed modifier with a comma modify the nearest noun or the entire clause ??

Thanks
Neha

it can do either... but how is this related to the problem at hand?

[NicoleT643]

Hi Ron, sorry to reopen this thread, but I am a bit confused by the usage of comma+Verbing

You said in this question that the Verbing does not have to be consistent with the subject, as you mentioned in this link ( https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 1-150.html )

However, in the question, you said the Verbing does not have to modify the subject, link ( https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 30-30.html )

Can you please confirm for comma + Verbing, does the Verbing have to logically modify the subject? Or the subject of the comma + Verbing can be the result of the preceding clause?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

those modifiers should describe the preceding action, AND should make sense with the preceding subject as the most direct "agent" of that action. they should do both.

consider the 2 examples here:
due-to-poaching-and-increased-cultivation-t2368-15.html#p111214

in your first link, note that the strategy-guide example with "Crime has decreased..." is actually INCORRECT, and will be edited in the next edition. (this is explained in the posts that are currently at the end of that thread.)

[MdAbuAsad]

i don't know where you're getting this "rule" from... but, nope. that's not a real rule.

this is the sort of thing you can disprove VERY quickly and easily, just by opening up your OG and flipping through the first few SC problems.
13th ed #7 / 2016 ed #11 / 2017 ed #678
(can't reproduce here)
you have "of X", and then there's an "it" that clearly refers to "X".

__

in any case... don't make simple things complicated! don't make easy things hard!

with PRONOUNS, this is basically all you have to think about:
• what does the pronoun "want" to stand for?
• is that thing a NOUN?
• if it's a noun, does it match the pronoun (in terms of singular/plural)?

if those last two are "yes" and "yes"... the pronoun is fine.
end of story.

when things are simple... keep them simple!

Thank you Ron...

[MdAbuAsad]

Ron - is the usage of AND incorrect in A)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 millions year old"

the ", and" make it look like an independent clause but it isn't, should it be just "and " .

I'm having a tough figuring about when to " , and " vs " and ".
Much thanks

that's one way of eliminating that choice, although you have to be VERY careful in making that judgment -- it's quite possible to have a comma in front of "and" in a construction that's not an independent clause, if that comma belongs to some other construction (such as a modifier).

for instance:
i bought bananas and grapes --> normal parallel structure; there shouldn't be a comma here.
i bought bananas, which were on sale, and grapes. --> here there is a comma in front of "and", but that comma belongs to the green modifier.

--

what's probably an easier way to eliminate the same choice is to realize that you can't block off a modifier with a comma on only one side. modifiers should be blocked off either with commas on both sides (nonessential modifiers) or with commas on neither side (essential modifiers).
in that choice, "found in Puerto Rico in 1991" is blocked off with a comma on the right, but not on the left. bad news.

Option C says (wrong choice):
Fossils of the arm of a sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991, was dated at 34 million years old, making this the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands.
Q1: Can we also easily cancel C for using comma only in one side of modifier?
Q2: how to detect essential modifier and non-essential modifier from the context?
Q3: if C is changed to another version like below, then does it make sense?
Fossils of the arm of a sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991 WERE dated at 34 million years old, making THE SLOTH earliest known mammal ON the Greater Antilles islands.
--->I'm not changing the GMAC version-I want to increase the understanding.

Thank you Ron...

[RonPurewal]

Q1: Can we also easily cancel C for using comma only in one side of modifier?

^^ yes.

Q2: how to detect essential modifier and non-essential modifier from the context?

^^ this difference is not tested on the GMAT.

[RonPurewal]

Fossils of the arm of a sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991...

^^ the red part doesn't make sense. the only thing that anyone "found" was FOSSILS, so the red modifier should be describing FOSSILS... but that doesn't work with "was" (singular).

[MdAbuAsad]

Q1: Can we also easily cancel C for using comma only in one side of modifier?

^^ yes.

Probably, it'll help me too much in future, Thank you for your specific response.

Fossils of the arm of a sloth that was found in Puerto Rico in 1991...

^^ the red part doesn't make sense. the only thing that anyone "found" was FOSSILS, so the red modifier should be describing FOSSILS... but that doesn't work with "was" (singular).

Q1:
Ok, i get it. So, if the sentence is like below, then does it make sense?
Fossils of the arm of a sloth that WERE found in Puerto Rico in 1991 WERE dated at 34 million years old, making THE SLOTH earliest known mammal ON the Greater Antilles islands.
---------------
Q2:
The correct sentence of this problem is:
Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands.
Ron, will it still be correct if the correct version is changed like below?
Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991 have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands.
Ron, i should not change the GMAC's correct version. Actually, i've no intention to change GMAC's correct version; i'm doing that to learn something more about it.