Can't 'which' modify an entire sentence?!

Thanks for the wonderful explanation Mike!

"Actually wrong" is a bit of an absurd concept, I think! You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't use 'which' to modify whole sentences. It's a fairly preposterous grammar 'rule', and definitely doesn't describe how people actually write and speak.

That said, I think we should be grateful that the GMAC considers it to be a rule. It gives you a very quick, smart way to eliminate answers that otherwise sound good to your ear. The 'which rule' is a very commonly tested concept on tough SC problems, and people who realize that the GMAC doesn't like it, have a leg up on people who solely use their ears for SC.

Do you have an example to show that the GMAC considers this to be a rule? I kinda have a hunch it is, but have no proof or evidence.

Sure thing! In the OG16, check out the official explanation for SC46, particularly answer choice A. The GMAC says that 'the referent of which is ambiguous'. But if the referent of 'which' could be a full clause, then it would clearly modify the entire preceding clause, 'alter the saline content of the bay'.

Another example is in the explanation for SC84. If the antecedent of 'which' could be "touch each exhibit" (i.e. a clause), then there wouldn't be any 'ambiguity'.

By the way, I can't stand how heavily the GMAC leans on the term 'ambiguous'. Ironically, they aren't very clear about what that means! It would make much more sense to phrase it in terms of grammar rules.

Dear ccooley,

With all due respect, my intelligent colleague, I am going to disagree with you. I admit this mistake runs rampant in colloquial speech, as does "less"/"fewer" confusion, as does "lie"/"lay" confusion. Of course, the language is always evolving, and those constructions that are technically wrong but widely used are likely to become accepted at some point. Nevertheless, as the English language now exists, in 2016, there is a more colloquial side and a more sophisticated, well-spoken side. The latter, and only the latter, is the standard to which the GMAT conforms. The GMAT even gives deference to the "old-fashioned" rules concerning split infinitives and ending with a preposition: the folks at GMAT don't test these things directly, but such mistakes appear only in incorrect answer choices on official questions. The question of whether any construction is common in colloquial speech is immaterial: what matters is how structures are used in formal contexts, such as professional and academic writing. In such contexts, I submit it would be relatively unlikely to find the pronoun "which" referring to an entire clause. Furthermore, the word "which" is a pronoun, a relative pronoun, and therefore we can expect the formal rules for it to conform to those of all other pronouns. Pronouns refer to nouns. Insofar as we agree that this is a "rule," we would have to admit the corollary with the word "which."

Mike McGarry

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.