As a result of a supernova explosion, every human being on Earth was

EducationAisle

for choice a I don't understand the part of speech the word harmless plays. I thought it would be an adjective and thus the core sentence would read:

"Fortunately, neutrinos are elementary particles..." -> and that wouldn't make sense
However, the understanding in this thread is that elementary particles is actually a modifier of harmless so the sentence being read is:
"Fortunately, neutrinos are harmless..." -> Which makes sense

but how do I know which interpretation is valid? strictly following parts of speech would lead me to the first conclusion

Hi! Can you point me to the specific posts that states the above, so that I get a better context.

This is sort of related to gmatninja's first post in the thread about answer choice A:

And the meaning seems OK to me, too: it is indeed fortunate that neutrinos are harmless and that they interact weakly with matter. If they weren't harmless, we would have been toast thirty years ago, and we never would have experienced the joys of GMAT Club, the Colorado Rockies, snapchat, Game of Thrones, Steph Curry, or Taylor Swift. Keep (A).


My question is he is reading the main sentence as "Fortunately neutrinos are harmless" but I read harmless as an adjective so I stripped it out and read "Fortunately, neutrinos are elementary particles". That statement has nothing to do with being fortunate. So I thought it was illogical. In his post he also points out other answer choices that are wrong because boiled down to their core they say things like "Fortunately, Neutrinos are produced in nuclear reactions".

harmless is definitely an adjective, and hence, a modifier. I don't agree that "elementary particles is actually a modifier of harmless"; in fact, it is the other way round.

When we look at a sentence, we need to look at it in entirety, an not after stripping off the adjectives.

For example:

I love red cars.

is obviously a different sentence than:

I love cars..

MartyTargetTestPrep
Hello Marty,
I was wondering whether you could shed some light on the following issue regarding answer choice C.
I know that answer choice A has a much better parallelism, but I was wondering how we could eliminate answer choice C, does it have an issue or we just eliminate it because in contrast to A its parallelism is inferior?
Specifically,
- neutrinos are harmless elementary particles (produced in nuclear reactions and which interact very weakly with matter).
a) neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions
b) neutrinos are harmless elementary particles which interact very weakly with matter

I think both parts make sense.

Both parts do make sense.

So, (C) isn't a good as (A) because the structure of (C) is a little off.

"elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions" is a pretty cohesive noun phrase. It really has the feel of one unit to it.

Then, "and which ..." comes along and has a whole other feel to it.

In other words, the relationship between "particles" and "produced in nuclear reactions" and the relationship between "particles" and "which interact ..." feel quite different from each other.

So, while the two modifiers are basically parallel, and while each works logically with "particles," the structure is not ideal. The structure in (A) is much more clearly parallel.

Also, while it is not strictly true that "which" cannot be used to begin a restrictive relative clause, the GMAT tends to use "which" in nonrestrictive relative clauses and "that" in restrictive relative clauses. So, the use of "which" at the beginning of a restrictive relative clause, while debatably OK, is a sign that, likely, the question writer doesn't really like (C) as much as (A).

In (A), "that" introduces a noun modifier, which means that it (generally) gives us more information about the noun that comes right before the "that." "Elementary particles" comes right before the "that," so we're modifying "elementary particles."

There are certainly exceptions to this so-called "touch rule," so you do have to be a bit careful when determining exactly what is a violation of the rule. For more info about these exceptions and lots more fun with the word "that," check out this article.

I hope that helps!

In (A), "that" introduces a noun modifier, which means that it (generally) gives us more information about the noun that comes right before the "that." "Elementary particles" comes right before the "that," so we're modifying "elementary particles."

There are certainly exceptions to this so-called "touch rule," so you do have to be a bit careful when determining exactly what is a violation of the rule. For more info about these exceptions and lots more fun with the word "that," check out this article.

I hope that helps![

Hi GMATNinja - I thought given "THAT" referred to elementary particles, I eliminated option A

My Reasoning : it cannot be elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions. It cannot be elementary particles that interact weakly with matter

It is the neutrino's specifically that are produced in nuclear reactions. It is the neutrino's specifically that interact weakly with matter

Hence i eliminated because "THAT" referred to elementary particles and not neutrino's[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Ram is a guy who is in red shirt.
jabhatta2 is a candidate who is preparing for GMAT.

According to your query, Ram is in red shirt , but not guy.
jabhatta2 is giving GMAT but not a candidate?
I think you get the point.
Similarly, what are neutrinos? neutrinos are elementary particles. Actually one of the elementary particles ( Ram is one of the guy/jabhatta is one of the candidate ). Which one are elementary particles ? The one that are produced in nuclear reaction. We care about specific elementary particles .

I hope it helps.

Hi mSKR - so what you are saying is "THAT" refers to neutrino's and not elementary particles ?

Because GMATNinja said above the opposite, i.e. THAT" referred to elementary particles and not neutrino's

GMATNinja - Please feel free to correct my interpretation of your statement

jabhatta2
Yes, That to refers to elementary particles, but just read the part before elementary particles. The option clearly says that neutrinos, themselves, are elementary particles. In the sentence structure, that refers to elementary particles but look at the overall meaning and not just one particular part of the sentence.

As both mSKR and Brian123 have noted, the question of whether "that" is describing "elementary particles" or "neutrinos" isn't worth devoting much brain space to, since the neutrinos are themselves elementary particles. So either interpretation would make sense. Consider another example:

"Tim is the kind of parent who sometimes allows his children to play with the family soldering iron."

In this case, "who sometimes allows his children to play," appears to describe "parent." What kind of parent is Tim? The kind who lets his kids play with a soldering iron. Agonizing over whether "who" refers to "parent" or "Tim" is a waste of energy, as Tim is the parent in question! Either way, the modification makes sense.

Same deal in (A). "That" seems to describe the "elementary particles." What kind of elementary particles are we talking about? The kind that [are produced in nuclear reactions and that interact very weakly with matter. In other words, without the "that" phrase we could be talking about any type of elementary particles. The modifier gives us specifics. Makes sense.

That said, if you wanted to argue that the neutrinos themselves are produced in nuclear reactions and interact weakly with matter, you'd be right, as the neutrinos are the elementary particles in question! If either interpretation is logical, you certainly wouldn't want to get bogged down trying to figure out which sensible interpretation the question writer had in mind. It's enough to see that the modifier works well enough that it shouldn’t be viewed as an error.

I hope that clears things up!

egmat chetan2u
For me it boiled down to option A and E. But I selected E because I thought the relative modifier that can refer back to a noun before it if there are prepositions in between. Anything wrong with my thinking? Can you provide me with another solid reason to reject E?

how is "that" used to modify particles? Isn't "that" singular?

When "that" is used as a modifier (or "relative pronoun" if you like the jargon), it's used for both singular and plural nouns. Tim could eat one "burrito that is undercooked," or he could eat many "burritos that are undercooked." (Either way, he's in for an uncomfortable evening. )

Same deal here. In the phrase "particles that are produced in nuclear reactions," "that" is a modifier describing the particles. Because "that" is functioning as a modifier, it could be used for either a singular or a plural noun. (And clearly, "particles those are produced in nuclear reactions" isn't right!)

I hope that clears things up!

Can you please differentiate between the use of that and those?

If we're describing a plural noun, we use "that." "The burritos that are undercooked" is an example of this. The phrase beginning with "that" describes the burritos.

If we're using a pronoun in place of a plural noun, we would use "those." For example:

"The burritos on the floor seem to be more appealing to Tim's daughter than those on her plate."

Now "those" is a stand-in for the noun "burritos."

I hope that helps!

In answer choice E, wouldn't it be okay to say that

"...are neutrinos that interact weakly with matter" <- so the advantage is that the neutrinos produced by the supernova explosion are a kind of neutrinos that interact weakly with matter (fortunately).

Please help. GMATNinja

Notice that the second clause of the sentence uses the present tense to say, "these elementary particles, harmless products of nuclear reactions, are."

By considering this wording, we can see that, the second clause is not written to to describe the specific neutrinos with which every person "was bombarded" during the past event described by the first clause of the sentence. Rather, the second clause is meant to make a statement about all "these elementary particles" or neutrinos in general.

So, the use of the restrictive relative clause "that interact weakly with matter," which seems to communicate that the neutrinos are somehow a certain type of neutrinos, conflicts with the rest of the wording of the second clause of the sentence.

MartyTargetTestPrep

Hi,

I was struggling between (A) and (E) and went for (E). My reasoning was that the first 'that' is not essential. Why do we need to know that they are made in some kind of explosion?

Whereas in (E), the main point of the sentence is in a modifier, it is still conveyed.

Could you please explain?

Thanks