Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made

hello generis, any idea why D is wrong ? it was my choice

hazelnut GMATNinjaTwo generis Vyshak daagh @karishmab
Can you please explain why B and D is wrong ?

Hey dave13

Though, your question is not directed to me, I would like to help you with this one. The first thing that pops out in D is back to back modifier. Gmat seems to dislike back to back modifier for a subject.

Eg: modifier 1, modifier 2, subject
If modifier 1 and modifier 2 modifies subject, it is not the construction we want.

However, if modifier 1 modifies subject and modifier 2 modifies modifier 1, then this construction is perfectly ok

If that sounds too abstract, consider these examples:

1) MODIFIER 1, Subject
=ok. This is the most common one.
Having spent three months preparing for GMAT, Sumit needed to decide on a date to take the exam.

2) MODIFIER 1, more modifier referring to modifier 1, subject= this is also ok


3) MODIFIER 1+modifier of main sentence+ subject

This is NOT okay.

Eg: Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress - - - > read out modifier 2 in isolation---> it seems to modify subject.
__________________

Hope this helps. Do ask if anything remains unclear.



Thank you = Kudos

hi expert can some explain correct answer A .
which is the verb for the act of congress . as per my undertanding verb is missing

Hi dave13 and teaserbae ,

(I am not the expert from Magoosh, but I am replying to your callout from yesterday.)

Although sumit411 is partly correct about GMAC's PREFERENCE for modifiers that are not back-to-back, the exceptions and variations make my head hurt.

Options B and D can be eliminated on more straightforward grounds.

This question tests logical predication and parallelism.

The sentence is supposed to describe two separate things about an act of Congress.

Fact one: the act was passed on April 24, 1800.

Fact two: its provisions made two things happen: A (moved the government to a new city); and B (established the Library of Congress)

Both options B and D fail at that task.

Look at the modifiers.

The modifiers in B and D are set off by commas. The modifiers allegedly are not essential.

Logically, however, the modifiers are essential to convey the two different facts about the act: when it was passed, and what it did.

The absence of commas signals that the modifier is restrictive; only restrictive modifiers are not set off by commas.

Hence the THAT without commas signals an essential part of the sentence; removing an essential modifier changes the core of the sentence.

The "WHICH + commas" construction indicates that the information is not essential to the core of the sentence and can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence.

So -- remove the "comma WHICH" clause from B (allegedly the "which" clause just provides some extra information). We have:

The act of Congress making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established the Library of Congress.

Incorrect. We can't just remove the date an important piece of legislation was approved. When it was approved makes a difference.

In Option D, we have nonessential modifiers (they are set off by commas). Remove them.

(D) The act of Congress also established the Library of Congress.

Definitely not correct.

In addition, if you missed the modifiers (learn about essential and nonessential!), the verb forms that describe the act's provisions are not parallel.

As the options stand, we have

X makING provision for A and establishED B

(we can use "and" to describe "also" because the comma that precedes also exists only because a city is named)

Making and established are not parallel. The CORRECT construction would be

X made provision for A and established B

Finally, in its typical usage, a comma + ___ ING (present participle modifier) refers to whatever precedes it. B and D say:

April 24, 1800, making

The date the act was passed and the content of the act have nothing to do with each other; the modifier is illogical at best.

Okay, I fibbed. One more thought: Answer A sets the two important facts about the act right next to the act and uses the essential modifier THAT. Although finding four wrong answers is the best strategy, sometimes that strategy includes comparing answers. Whittle them down. Compare those that remain. (Ideally, none remain, but that scenario probably will not happen 100% of the time.)

Some very hard SCs may look as if no answer is correct. But option A is very clear.

With all the issues that B and D present, remember to compare what you like with options that have no glaring errors.

dave13 and teaserbae - I hope that answer helps.

If not, ask your question a bit more specifically and we'll be glad to help.

(I am not the expert from Magoosh, but I am replying to your callout from yesterday.)

generis if there was no also in B would that be correct sentence ?
Or we will still require essential modifer ?

Thanks

Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington. D.C., also established the Library of Congress.

(A) Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
(B) The act of Congress, which was approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established
(C) The act of Congress approved April 24, 1800, which made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., and established
(D) Approved April 24, 1800, making provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., the act of Congress also established
(E) Approved April 24, 1800, the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing

Your reasoning for eliminating (B), (C), and (D) looks good to me!

Take another look at the relevant portion of (A): "the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established..." Here the structure is "The act that did X...also did Y." So we've got two parallel actions. Makes sense. Hang on to (A)

Now compare that with (E) "the act of Congress made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also establishing" Now the structure is "That act did X...also Y-ing." In this case "X" is a verb and "Y" is a modifier. Not parallel. So (E) is out.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja

when i looked at A

the act of Congress that made provision for the removal of the government of the United States to the new federal city, Washington, D.C., also established

i thought that the subject - the act of congress does not have a verb... because immediately after the subject we have a that clause.. but in my blind review , i understood that - established is the verb for the subject..

my doubt here is that since the subject did X and Y; wouldnt it be better for Y to be "and that Y" i.e. structure should have "that after and" for paralellism?

Why is also required in option A? Isn't it redundant?