According to scientists at the University of California, the pattern

Tejal you are correct on the S-V, eliminate A, B and C on that basis.
There are also redundancy in some of those answers such as in a) “the possibility” and “might” is duplication and not concise.

Between D and E the main difference is “may be a descendant of” vs “might be a descendant from”. I don’t know if there is an idiom for this but as a native speaker “descendant of” is typically used. Same as the word member – you would be a member of a band but not a member from a band. Although they both probably make sense the first seems more correct.

Regarding the question about the main subject, it is “pattern of changes”, not the scientists.

Hopefully someone else can offer a better explanation

yep descendent from is totally incorrect. The correct form is 'descended from' or 'descendent of' . Nice question.

You guys might want to kill me but now I have a new querie:(
1."decendant from" is the right idiom i checked,so you guys are bang on on that.

I was reviewing the questions again and got a bit confused.

I had read somewhere,that "that" refers to immediate nouns:
One of the substances that tell/[strike]tells[/strike]
One of the substances [strike]tells[/strike]/tell

Coming back to the original question,
the pattern of changes that have occurred
So the subject here becomes changes>Plural>>Indicate..

Idiom Issue:

1. "descendant from" could be a correct idiom but that doesnot mean that "descendant of" is incorrect.
2. "descendant from" could be a correct idiom but that doesnot mean that "descendant from" is superior to "descendant of".
3. "descendant from" could be a correct idiom but that doesnot mean that it is properly used in the given context.
4. "descendant from" and "descendant of" both could equally be correct and properly be used in D and E, but if E has an obvious error (i.e. wrong verb "might"), then it is less likely to be the OA than D, which doesnot have that error.




SVA:

E. According to scientists at the University of California, the pattern of changes that have occurred in human DNA over the millennia indicates that everyone alive today may be a descendant of a single female ancestor who lived in Africa sometime between 140,000 and 280,000 years ago.

- Subject = the pattren - singular
- Verb = indicates - singular

"That" refers to "changes" and is a plural. Therefore "That" has a plural verb "have".





The folloings are both correct:

One of the substances that tell/[strike]tells[/strike]
One of the substances [strike]tells[/strike]/tell

Difficult question!

A) "indicate" does not agree with "the pattern"
B) idem
C) "may indicate" changes the meaning
D) looks fine, let's go to the next
E) looks fine too, let's see what is different

process of choosing:
1) between "might" and "may", I would use "may" (but I don't know whether this is better... anyone know?)
2) my ear says that "descendant from" is awkward. If I would say "descendant from", it would be a country or something like that. However, this "descendant" sounds like "descendant of Japanese or sth like that.

Agree?

The correct idioms are:

'descendant of'
'descended from'

Hence D.

[quote="rgtiwari"]According to scientists at the University of California, the pattern of changes that have occurred in human DNA over the millennia indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who lived in Africa sometime between 140,000 and 280,000 years ago.

Eliminate A and B for subject-verb agreement problem, redundancy/double meaning.

Double meaning is the reason to eliminate C.

Between D and E.

"Might" is the past tense of the verb "may." In this sentence, the general fact/general truth is stated, requiring the present tense. Use of "might" is incorrect.

D.

６．According to scientists at the University of California, the pattern of changes that have occurred in human DNA over the millennia indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who lived in Africa sometime between 140,000 and 280,000 years ago.
(A) indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who Awkward construction
(B) indicate that everyone alive today might possibly be a descendant of a single female ancestor who had Wrong tense
(C) may indicate that everyone alive today has descended from a single female ancestor who had Same reason as B
(D) indicates that everyone alive today may be a descendant of a single female ancestor who CORRECT
(E) indicates that everyone alive today might be a descendant from a single female ancestor who Should be "descendant of"

Hence IMO D

In this particular case: 'descendant' is an adjective and hence should be followed by 'of' whereas 'descended' is verb and hence should be followed by 'from'.

Hi there,

According to scientists at the University of California, the pattern of changes that have occurred in human DNA over the millennia indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who lived in Africa sometime between 140,000 and 280,000 years ago.

Error Analysis:
1. The subject for the plural verb “indicate” is singular “the pattern”. So, we have SV number agreement here.
2. The underlined portion contains “possibility” as well as “might”. Both the words indicate possibility. Hence, we cannot use both the words in same construction. Presence of both renders one of them redundant.
3. Use of “might be descended”. The correct verb here should be “might have descended” because all the alive people today have already taken birth and thus have descended. Verb “might be descended” seems to suggest that this action could have some possibility in the future.

POE:

(A) indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who: Incorrect for the reason stated above.

(B) indicate that everyone alive today might possibly be a descendant of a single female ancestor who had: Incorrect.
1. Same SV agreement number error as in choice A.
2. Same redundancy error as in choice A.
3. Use of past perfect tense “had lived” is incorrect here. There are no two past events that we need to use past perfect tense to establish sequence. The sentence is presenting general information about this woman ancestor and hence, nust be written in simple past tense.

(C) may indicate that everyone alive today has descended from a single female ancestor who had: Incorrect.
1. Placement of “may” is incorrect. Per the original sentence, there is a possibility that all of us have descended from a single woman ancestor. Per this choice the possibility is that the pattern of changes may indicate something. This is certainly not the intended meaning.
2. Same past perfect tense error as in choice B.

(D) indicates that everyone alive today may be a descendant of a single female ancestor who: Correct.

(E) indicates that everyone alive today might be a descendant from a single female ancestor who: Incorrect. “descendent from” is an incorrect expression.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

According to scientists at the University of California, the pattern of changes that have occurred in human DNA over the millennia indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who lived in Africa sometime between 140,000 and 280,000 years ago.

(A) indicate the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended from a single female ancestor who

(B) indicate that everyone alive today might possibly be a descendant of a single female ancestor who had

(C) may indicate that everyone alive today has descended from a single female ancestor who had

(D) indicates that everyone alive today may be a descendant of a single female ancestor who

(E) indicates that everyone alive today might be a descendant from a single female ancestor who


OA is D..... If OA is D, I think the sentence must be " the pattern of changes that has ocurred ....." indicates that .....

If the non underlined portion reads "the pattern of changes that have occurred... may indicate that" ...because have & indicate are plural.

If subject is pattern and if its singular, has is correct. OA is D
If subject is changes and if its plural, have is correct. OA is C

Please clear my confusion.

Hi Maadhu,

Interesting one.

The key thing here is working out what agrees with what.

The main 'subject' of the sentence is 'the pattern' this is singular, so should agree with the main verb 'indicates'

So in D this is correct.

What makes the question difficult is that the 'pattern' (singular) is described as 'changes that have.....' Which is plural. This is what is confusing.

So D is correct as it stands.

Does that help?

I think the confusion about have or has is not required in this context because, have is the correct verb, since it is not underlined. (that is why we require to underline the relevant portion so that it always stands before our eyes.). The object of the preposition changes is the subject of that verb. The logical sequence therefore is to identify the main clause and its partner verb. This will lead us to identity 'pattern' as the subject of the main clause , which is singular and thereby the singular verb indicates The verb is rather a little away after the subordinate clause. So D is undisputable choice .
C also has problem in the use of past perfect as the past perfect is simply dangling without the accompaniment of a simple past to logically pinpoint the timeline

The pronoun "that" refers to "changes", not "pattern", and hence plural. A modifier generally refers to the noun it touches. (The noun could be an object of preposition.)

Hi All,

I have read all the answers and I still do not understand a few things about answer choice C :

Since the subject is "pattern" (singular) why do we have to discard "may" ?
Don't we say : "He may come later" or "He may visit us next week" ?(same orthography as answer choice C)

Also, some argue that "may indicate" change the meaning, but since may indicate the possibility of something

Why do we consider "may indicate that" to have a different meaning from "indicate the possibility that" ?

As I am not native speaker, my question could seem irrelevant and I apologie for that,
Meanwhile, I thank you in advance for your kind help,

C is incorrect not because of wrong S-V agreement ("may indicate" is alright), but because of unnecessary use of past perfect ("HAD lived" is not required).

Your reasoning is valid - "may indicate" and " indicate the possibility" both convey the same meaning.

The problem in A is the redundancy due to simultaneous use of "possibility" and "might".

...the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended... correct
...the possibility that everyone alive today might be descended... redundant

The same problem is there in B as well:"might possibly"

Why is not there "had" at the end of the phrase in D? That bothered me to such an extent I chose B.

Posted from my mobile device