The first detailed study of magpie attacks in Australia

[RonPurewal]

we can't discuss other problems unless you provide a citation of the original source.

[Crisc419]

I'm still confused as to why 'B' could not be the correct answer. It used the past perfect 'had been'.

in (b), the past perfect is inappropriately matched with the OTHER verb, which is in the present tense.

either of the following two constructions would be appropriate:
...by the time they reach adulthood, they have been attacked...
...by the time they reached adulthood, they had been attacked...

you can't "mix and match" between these - i.e., reach + had been is wrong, as is reached + have been.

do we need "will" here?

by the time they reach adulthood, they will have been attacked...

thanks in advance.

Cris

[RonPurewal]

that version would be grammatically correct, although of course it's nonsense (it's impossible for a study to make such an exact prediction).

[Crisc419]

that version would be grammatically correct, although of course it's nonsense (it's impossible for a study to make such an exact prediction).

you didn't use "will", you wrote:
"...by the time they reach adulthood, they have been attacked..."

i ask whether we should add "will", because as you said before, here "by" indicates what happen in the future.

[RonPurewal]

"by the time they reach adulthood, they have been attacked..."
—> GENERAL STATEMENT (no specific timeframe)

"by the time they reach adulthood, they will have been attacked..."
—> statement about FUTURE events

in the second case, you might expect "by the time they will reach...", but no such thing exists in english. (if something after "if" represents the future, then it's written in the same way as the present.)

[DiegoL46]

Roger！
thanks so much!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome... but, are you the same person who asked the question?

[DiegoL46]

you're welcome... but, are you the same person who asked the question?

Confused by choice (E), I looked carefully at your words above, and understood this problem. I was happy with that, and then I gave the words "Roger.."which was the first time I wrote on this magical forum.
Now, I realized that this is not the appropriate behavior.
I am sorry, and I will learn more abort the message custom of this forum to avoid mess it up.
Sorry again!

[cgentry]

No worries! Glad you understand your question too!

[DrorB121]

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.

Hi Ron

Can i eliminate B for using comma+who which in that case modifies only women? Can "who" following a comma modify men also?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

yes, that sort of modifier can describe "X and Y".

[RaviK465]

Hi Instructors,

Can we eliminate option E on the basis that who refers to & 75% of women and not both 98% of men and 75% of women?

Or rather can we say that the usage of who is ambiguous? whether who is referring to 75% of women or 98% of men and 75% of women?

Thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

No, we can't. If the 'who were born' modifier were ambiguous in answer E, so would be the 'born in' modifier in answer C.

[RaviK465]

No, we can't. If the 'who were born' modifier were ambiguous in answer E, so would be the 'born in' modifier in answer C.

Thanks for the response Sage.

Is there any specific reason why who refers to both 98% of men and 75% of women or is it just by looking at all the answer options?

What i mean to ask is, is there some specific rule that i am missing regarding the usage of who? I was under the impression that who should refer to the noun closest to it.
Even though i correctly marked the answer, i seem to have eliminated choice E for the wrong reason. Can you please explain why in this case who refers to both 98% of men and 75% of women?

Thanks

[StaceyKoprince]

A who modifier does refer to a preceding noun—but it can also refer to a preceding pair of nouns linked by a parallelism marker.

Amy and Su, who both work with me, are really nice.
--> That who modifier refers to both Amy and Su.

The sentence structure in the given problem is the same as the structure I gave in my short example sentence above—the nouns are connected by the word and, and the who modifier refers to both nouns in that structure.