"which is/which was" usage ..?

[direstraits007]

A substance from the licorice plant, 50
times sweeter than sucrose, was recently
discovered, is not only a natural sweetener
but also prevents tooth decay.
(A) A substance from the licorice plant,
50 times sweeter than sucrose, was
recently discovered,
(B) A substance, which was recently discovered,
from the licorice plant, 50
times sweeter than sucrose,
(C) A substance from the licorice plant,
which was recently discovered to be
50 times sweeter than sucrose,
(D) A substance from the licorice plant,
50 times sweeter than sucrose, which
was recently discovered,
(E) A recently discovered substance, 50
times sweeter than sucrose from the
licorice plant,

source: arco

OA: C

Well I read somewhere on manahattan forums only that "which is/which was" or "that are" etc are a redundant usages. Rather we can just use is/was or are instead of those terms.

So while doing this question, I thought that "which is/was" is redundant, so I marked my answer A. But it is wrong.

Can some one please explain.

Ron/Stacey

Can you please elucidate the usage of "which is/which was" or "that are". I mean when these should be used and when these are considered redundant phrases.


Many Thanks!


GeeMate.

[rags99]

my 2 cents:

This is a case of understanding the usage of "which".. non-restrictive clause
The correct format of the sentence should be:

A substance from the X plant, [redundant], is not only ..but also...


---

I have never come across a specific rule that says: Which is/are is redundant..

the one rule that i am aware of is: use comma before which, and no comma with that.

[direstraits007]

my 2 cents:

This is a case of understanding the usage of "which".. non-restrictive clause
The correct format of the sentence should be:

A substance from the X plant, [redundant], is not only ..but also...


---

I have never come across a specific rule that says: Which is/are is redundant..

the one rule that i am aware of is: use comma before which, and no comma with that.

I agree with you on the last statement that use comma before which. But sometimes we may use comma before that as well.

see here: Generally we shouldn't use a comma before "that", but if the comma belongs to the modifier, then it's ok to use it.
for instance:
This is the cake that I ate today. [correct]
This is the cake, that I ate today. [wrong]
This is the cake, suggested by my friend, that I ate today. [correct]

In this case, the commas belong to the modifier; after removing the modifier, the sentence is like the first one (i.e., without the comma one).

But I'm not sure whether the "which is/which was" usage it right to use...

Thanks.

GeeMate.

[sachin.iet]

I feel correct answer is A.
Can we reconfirm the answer.

In C "which" is referrnig to the licorice plant and not to the Substance.Hence use of which is ambiguous

Moreover C is changing the meaning of the original substance saying that
"It has recently been discovered the substance to be 50 times sewwter than sucrose"

while the correct meaning states these 3 facts, with 2 stated in modifiers and the third main fact after them.

1) The substance from licorice plant is 50 times sweeter than sucrose
2) The substance from licorice plant was recently discovered
3) THE MAIN FACT--The substance from licorice plant is not only a natural sweetener
but also prevents tooth decay.

Hope this makes sense.

A is correctly using the modifiers

Thanks and Regards

[direstraits007]

I feel correct answer is A.
Can we reconfirm the answer.

In C "which" is referrnig to the licorice plant and not to the Substance.Hence use of which is ambiguous

Moreover C is changing the meaning of the original substance saying that
"It has recently been discovered the substance to be 50 times sewwter than sucrose"

while the correct meaning states these 3 facts, with 2 stated in modifiers and the third main fact after them.

1) The substance from licorice plant is 50 times sweeter than sucrose
2) The substance from licorice plant was recently discovered
3) THE MAIN FACT--The substance from licorice plant is not only a natural sweetener
but also prevents tooth decay.

Hope this makes sense.

A is correctly using the modifiers

Thanks and Regards

I also feel that A is the right answer. Well the source of the question is ARCO book:Diagnostic Test:Q24. The OA given in the book is C and their description sucks: "The original sentence runs several ideas together. (C) correctly separates them, and places them in a logical order."

Still confused how C can be the answer when "which" is modifying the licorice plant. The only case in which C could be the right answer is when in the statement of option C "A substance from the licorice plant,...." the "licorice plant" is modifies "a substance". But that doesn't seem to be a case here. So, in my opinion the OA is wrong.

Ron/Stacey....Please comment.

Thanks.

GeeMate.

[RonPurewal]

yeah, this is just a terrible problem. the use of "which" would be enough to eliminate their correct answer (c) on the real test, since "which" would be taken to refer to the licorice plant itself. since it's clear that the licorice plant itself was not "recently discovered", this is wrong.

(a) is also wrong, though; it's a run-on sentence. you can't have a sentence with two main verbs!
"A substance ... was recently discovered, is..."
neither of these is subordinated, or connected with a conjunction, in any way. not acceptable.

--

for what it's worth, none of these answer choices would be acceptable on the official test.

[direstraits007]

yeah, this is just a terrible problem. the use of "which" would be enough to eliminate their correct answer (c) on the real test, since "which" would be taken to refer to the licorice plant itself. since it's clear that the licorice plant itself was not "recently discovered", this is wrong.

(a) is also wrong, though; it's a run-on sentence. you can't have a sentence with two main verbs!
"A substance ... was recently discovered, is..."
neither of these is subordinated, or connected with a conjunction, in any way. not acceptable.

--

for what it's worth, none of these answer choices would be acceptable on the official test.

Thanks Ron! I got it now !

So can you please tell me whether it is right to use "which is/which was/that are" type constructions. Recently I saw one question in OG12 which rejected the option, which used "that were"...OG12's reason for rejection is "redundant usage". Also, in some other questions of OG12, I find this usage correct. So, I'm confused by the usage. Please enlighten this.

I know one or two official questions which reject this usage.
Refer to OG 12 - Q108 for "Who are" and OG 12 - Q68 for "That were" usage rejection.


Thanks!

GeeMate.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron! I got it now !

So can you please tell me whether it is right to use "which is/which was/that are" type constructions. Recently I saw one question in OG12 which rejected the option, which used "that were"...OG12's reason for rejection is "redundant usage". Also, in some other questions of OG12, I find this usage correct. So, I'm confused by the usage. Please enlighten this.

well, these constructions are wordier than appositives. so, basically, the deal is this:
if the appositive doesn't work, then use the "which is"/"which was"/etc. construction.

there are lots of reasons why the appositive might not work. for instance, there might be a shift of tense:
the city hall, which was situated on the shore before the 1991 hurricane, is now located twenty miles inland.
you can't just use comma + "situated" in this case, because the main clause of the sentence is in the present tense; you need a modifier that will switch to the past tense (to describe a situation that no longer holds). hence, the "which was" modifier.