The first detailed study of magpie attacks in Australia

[asnkarlygash]

What are the differences between options C and E? Why E is wrong?
I do not understand what are the differences in the meaning, although I know that there are severals because the modifiers are placed in different places.

hmm. well, the major problem is that choice (e) attempts to set off a modifier with a single comma (on the left, but NOT on the right).

you can't do this. if a modifier is in the middle of a sentence, then you must either
* set it off with TWO commas, one on each side; or
* not set it off with commas at all.

the man who showed up yesterday is back again --> ok (meaning = there is more than one man, and i have to clarify that it's the one who showed up yesterday)
the man, who showed up yesterday, is back again --> ok (meaning = we already know which man; i'm merely providing more detail)
the man, who showed up yesterday is back again --> not ok
the man who showed up yesterday, is back again --> not ok

--

choice (e) is also fatally awkward, although it would probably take a native speaker (if not a seasoned writer of formal english) to ascertain that.

The main problem of choice e is that because "they" appears after the clause who, so they may refer to all people who were born in the country but not those people who are attacked. Am I right?

[RonPurewal]

"They" has the same function in that choice as it does in the correct choice, so no objection is possible there.

Whether "they" comes before or after its referent is immaterial, as long as the reference is clear.

[eggpain24]

Hi, Ron

in choice B

Is the use of non-essential modifier “comma+who .....+comma"
change the intended meaning?

98 percent of men and 75 percent of women born in the country

98 percent of men and 75 percent of women, who were born in the country,

we aren't essentially talking about the same group of people, are we?

please clarify, thanks~

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi,

I'll preface this by saying that i'm fully aware that we shouldn't question official answers, but i'd just like a clarification for future question.

1) I originally picked B because I thought that the modifier "who were born in the country" had to be separated by commas in order for it to refer to BOTH men and women. In option C -- "born in the country" is touching "women" so I thought that the statement incorrectly implied that the attacks were related to men(not necessarily born in the country) and women who were born in the country.

2) I realize that in choice B "had been attacked" is an event that happens in the (double past -- previous to another past) and I thought that the preface of ("by the time" they reach adulthood), the "by the time" part implied that it was a past event. I believe that's wrong because whenever we use "had been or had xxx" -- we need the other VERB to be in the past, and not necessarily the context surrounding the other verb?

Is my thought process correct?

[RonPurewal]

1) I originally picked B because I thought that the modifier "who were born in the country" had to be separated by commas in order for it to refer to BOTH men and women. In option C -- "born in the country" is touching "women" so I thought that the statement incorrectly implied that the attacks were related to men(not necessarily born in the country) and women who were born in the country.

* punctuation isn't tested on this exam. end of story.

* if a modifier follows "x and y", common sense prevails in assigning the modifier.
e.g., Sheryl likes rock music and men with long hair --> it's clear that "with long hair" only applies to "men".
in this sentence, it's equally clear that "born in the country" applies to both men and women.

[RonPurewal]

2) I realize that in choice B "had been attacked" is an event that happens in the (double past -- previous to another past) and I thought that the preface of ("by the time" they reach adulthood), the "by the time" part implied that it was a past event. I believe that's wrong because whenever we use "had been or had xxx" -- we need the other VERB to be in the past, and not necessarily the context surrounding the other verb?

i got lost toward the end there, but, "by the time..." does not imply the past. that's a function of what comes afterward.

e.g.,
by the time i saw dr. smith, i had been sick for 5 days.
(i saw dr. smith in the past.)

by the time i see dr. smith, i will have been sick for 5 days.
(i will see dr. smith in the future.)
^^ in these instances, english omits "will" from the future. this has never been tested on the gmat.
the point, though, is that "by the time i see... definitely doesn't describe the past. it would be nonsense to use such a construction to describe the present (we'd just use "now"!), so, it represents the future.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

2) I realize that in choice B "had been attacked" is an event that happens in the (double past -- previous to another past) and I thought that the preface of ("by the time" they reach adulthood), the "by the time" part implied that it was a past event. I believe that's wrong because whenever we use "had been or had xxx" -- we need the other VERB to be in the past, and not necessarily the context surrounding the other verb?

i got lost toward the end there, but, "by the time..." does not imply the past. that's a function of what comes afterward.

e.g.,
by the time i saw dr. smith, i had been sick for 5 days.
(i saw dr. smith in the past.)

by the time i see dr. smith, i will have been sick for 5 days.
(i will see dr. smith in the future.)
^^ in these instances, english omits "will" from the future. this has never been tested on the gmat.
the point, though, is that "by the time i see... definitely doesn't describe the past. it would be nonsense to use such a construction to describe the present (we'd just use "now"!), so, it represents the future.

Got it -- thanks.

I was using surrounding context which was screwing things up.

Thanks again.

[RonPurewal]

yep

[LaraZ595]

Hi,

In choice E, can "who" modify both the men and the women? I think "who" can only modify one word in the sentence so it only modifies women not men. Am I correct? Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

anything that can describe a single noun can also describe "(noun) AND (other noun)".

[CrystalSpringston]

Sorry, is there a way to delete my reply ? I failed to delete it but instead canceled the content.

[tim]

I don't see any other posts from you in this thread, so it looks like it was deleted just fine.

[Surya TejA527]

Hey Ron,
One last doubt.
E) 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women who were born in the country, by the time they reached adulthood had been attacked by the birds.
DOUBT: Should I consider the modifier after "who" to modify only women or the whole sentence ( men & women)
Can I consider this as a decision point to eliminate E?

[tim]

No, you cannot eliminate E due to this construction, mainly because the correct answer uses the same construction!

[NeetuJ81]

The fanatical, young group of girls have been waiting in the concert line all night by the time the tickets go on sale.

a) have been waiting in the concert line all night
b) will have been waiting in the concert line each night
c) will have been waiting in the concert line the entire night
d) had been waiting in the concert line all night
e) has been waiting in the concert line the whole night


In this ques, explanation says A is wrong because "by the time" implies that future action.

You have explained that these two are correct sentences :

1. By the time they reach adulthood, ---have been attacked by bird
1. By the time they reached adulthood, ---had been attacked by bird

Is it because the sentence is "study indicates" so it can't be in future tense.
But why A is wrong then in this ques "The fanatical, young group of girls have been waiting in the concert line all night by the time the tickets go on sale."