using the mission critical modifier "of"

[kalra.himanshu]

1. Consider 2 sentences:

-Sentence 1: Instead of buying of stocks and bonds, which are the conventional approach for those new to planning....
-Sentence 2 (without the word "of"): Instead of buying stocks and bonds, which are the conventional approach for those new to planning.....

In each of the above, does "which" refer to stocks and bonds or the buying of stocks and bonds (i think it refers to stocks and bonds even though there is a mission critical modifier)? Is either sentence correct the way it is?

Thanks.

[danielpatinkin]

1. Consider 2 sentences:

-Sentence 1: Instead of buying of stocks and bonds, which are the conventional approach for those new to planning....
-Sentence 2 (without the word "of"): Instead of buying stocks and bonds, which are the conventional approach for those new to planning.....

In each of the above, does "which" refer to stocks and bonds or the buying of stocks and bonds (i think it refers to stocks and bonds even though there is a mission critical modifier)? Is either sentence correct the way it is?

Thanks.

Good question!
Sentence 1 is structurally incorrect. "Instead of buying of stocks and bonds" does not really make sense. So let's consider a slightly different comparison:

Sentence A: "The buying of stocks and bonds, which is a conventional activity for those new to financial planning..."

Sentence B: "The buying of stocks and bonds, which are conventional investments for those new to financial planning..."

In my opinion, both of these versions are grammatically correct. In sentence A, the "which" clause is technically modifying the noun phrase "the buying of stocks and bonds". In sentence B, the "which" clause is modifying the nouns "stocks" and "bonds." So, as this example shows, modifiers are sometimes subject to the circumstances.

In the examples that you gave, the "which clause" is improperly modifying "stocks and bonds." Why? Because is it says that they are "the conventional approach." By definition, stocks and bonds are not approaches, they are types of investments.

I hope that helps!

Dan P

[gregoryssmith]

How do you know if an "of" can be removed or not?

I would like to know if these two sentences are grammatically correct:

All of my bases belong to us.
All my bases belong to us.

I was under the impression that the "of" is needed in there. I can't remember what the grammatical rule is though. Can you clarify? Or tell me where it is in the study guide?

[tim]

What you say!!

This is a straight idiom issue. i believe the correct sense is conveyed without the "of", so the preposition is unnecessary. However, you probably wouldn't encounter a GMAT problem where the only issue is to determine whether to use an "of" in this context. It's much more likely that you'd see a sentence with much more obvious grammatical issues, such as "All your base are belong to us"..

For great justice..