United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts

United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

A. that included - usage of comma + that is incorrect
B. which includes - which refers to first term
C. including - Correct
D. some of which were - the "which" is trying to refer to "several posts", which is way too far away from the comma to be acceptable
E. among them being - usage of being

Answer C

EMPOWERgmatRichC , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , daagh , egmat , GMATNinjaTwo , sayantanc2k , other experts
Comma + including modifies the preceding noun and thus does not actually work like a verb+ ing . But isn't posts too far away for comma+including to work this way?

Dear Skywalker18,

I'm happy to respond.

The short answer is "no," it's not too far.

Here, it's important to appreciate the different between vital vs. non-vital modifiers. See
GMAT Grammar: Vital Noun Modifiers

The word "posts" is generic and nondescript. It needs clarification. Both prepositional phrases are necessary to describe it. This is the entire phrase
" . . . posts within the Democratic party during his first term . . . "
This phrase functions as a single logical unit, and this single logical unit is "touching" the modifier "including" that targets it.

The distance that matters is not a word count. The distance that matter is one of logic & meaning, and in this context, there's really no distance at all between target and modifier.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,
Please clarify the below- comma + ing modifies the preceding clause and modifies the subject as well. Now, subject of the sentence is United States Senator Daniel Inouye , so how including is modifying the subject. As per the meaning including should modify posts, so is comma+ing (including) presently gives additional information about the preceding clause.

Dear sunny91,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, here's what I'll say. Some students imagine that they can learn all the "rules" to grammar and that this rule-based approach will lead to GMAT SC mastery. That approach is doomed to failure. Yes, it absolutely is important to learn the basic rules of grammar--those alone give you about 25% of what you need for GMAT SC. Beyond that, you need to develop intuition for the way that sentences convey meaning through logic and rhetoric. The only way for a non-native speaker to develop this intuition is through an assiduous habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

I will also say, on the rules side, please be precise in your language. Precision in language support precision in thought. The form of a verb that ends in -ing can be part of a progressive tense verb or a participle or a gerund. It's important to learn the precise language.

When we have
[independent clause],[participle]
there's no one-size-fits-all rule for this case. Sometimes the participle is a noun-modifier modifying the noun that it touches. Sometimes the participle is a noun modifier that modifies the subject of the sentence. Sometimes the participle is a verb modifier modifying the action of the independent clause. So much depends on the meaning conveyed in the independent clause, the rhetorical emphasis within the independent clause, and the meaning of the modifier. In this particular case, the modifier "including" by its very nature must modify some collection or set: in this sentence, it absolutely cannot modify the subject, Daniel Inouye, and has to modify the noun "several posts." Again, the best way to develop intuition for all these nuances is to develop a habit of reading.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,
I want to know what is wrong with option D. some of which were...........here we have verb were (plural), so which correctly modifies posts and not his first term. Please help.

Dear sunny91,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I will begin by telling you something shocking. The GMAT SC is NOT a test of grammar. The GMAT SC is a test of the quality of writing, and the quality of writing depends on (1) grammar, (2) logic, and (3) rhetoric; in a well-written sentence, such as a correct answer on the SC, all three of these strands cooperate to support a single clear meaning. The folks who write the GMAT SC questions are concerned with all aspects of the quality of writing.

One direct consequence of these facts is that the GMAT SC often has incorrect answers that are 100% grammatically correct. This is particularly befuddling to non-native students who are focused exclusively on grammar: such answers function as traps for these students. You see, a version of a sentence might be 100% grammatically correct, but illogical or awkward or wordy or etc. etc. There are dozens of ways in which a sentence can fall short of the standards of high quality writing.

In this SC question about the late Sen. Daniel Inouye (a very good man!), choice (D) is precisely such an answer. Choice (D) is 100% correct grammatically, absolutely no grammar flaw at all, and yet, it's not the right answer. Why? consider (C) and (D) side by side:

(C) . . . during his first term, including assistant majority whip . . .

(D) . . . during his first term, some of which were assistant majority whip . . .

Notice that, compared to version (C), version (D) uses one more syllable, 66% more letters, and 300% more words! Whether we are speaking or writing the sentence, it takes more effort & more space to use (D) than (C). The paradox is that if (C) didn't exist, (D) could be a perfectly fine right answer, but compared to (C), (D) looks clunky, swollen, and rambling. This is a subtle point: the GMAT SC is not just about black vs. white, absolutely right vs. absolutely wrong, the way math always is; instead, it is quite explicitly about the "best answer," and this focus means that one choice could be very good but still be beaten out by something better!

It's often hard to give clear simple rules for rhetoric, but one clear rule that the GMAT consistently follows is as follows: if you can say exactly the same thing correctly with more words or fewer, it's always better to say it with fewer. This is one of the many conditions in which a 100% grammatically correct answer would not be the OA.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Experts, please help me understand this:
Q)United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic party during his first
term, including assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

According to my understanding, "Including" modifies the preceding closest noun, right?
So in this question doesn't "including" modify "term"?

Hi Aniket, the word including is quite flexible in terms of what it can modify: either the word preceding it or the phrase preceding it, whichever makes sense.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses the application of “including”. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

I am still not sure why I should choose C over D.
Is there any grammatical error with D?
Is conciseness the only reason that makes C better than D?

Have you checked out this post by thangvietnam?

Consider the following examples:

• "I saw several movies last year, some of which were long and boring." - I saw several movies (say, 20 movies) last year. Some subset of those movies (say, 5 movies) were long and boring. The words "long" and "boring" describe the 5 movies.
• "I saw several movies last year, some of which were Bohemian Rhapsody and Deadpool 2." - We can have multiple movies that were "long and boring", but we can't have multiple movies that were Bohemian Rhapsody and Deadpool 2.
• "I saw several movies last year, including Bohemian Rhapsody and Deadpool 2." - This makes much more sense. Bohemian Rhapsody and Deadpool 2 are just two of the movies that I saw last year. So the movies that I saw last year included Bohemian Rhapsody and Deadpool 2.

Now look at choice (D):


Does that mean that there were multiple posts that qualified as both assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee?? (D) has the same problem as the second example above.

Compare that to choice (C):


The meaning is much clearer here. Inouye was appointed to several posts. Assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee are just two of those posts. The several posts to which he was appointed included 1) assistant majority whip and 2) vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

Yes, choice (C) is more concise than (D). But, more importantly, the meaning is clearer in (C).

I hope this helps!

Hi MartyTargetTestPrep RonTargetTestPrep KarishmaB - i am struggling to understand the usage of "including" in the OA

Simple sentences :

(i) I ate 10 burgers including 3 diet cokes = per my understanding, this sentence tells me i ate 10 burgers + 3 diet cokes.
(ii) Samantha gave birth to 3 boys including 2 girls = i thought samantha gave birth to a sum total of 5 children.

Simirlarly,

Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts including assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

So this must mean - Daniel Inouye was appointed to 3 things
- several posts
- assistant majority whip
- vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

Hence i knocked out (c) and chose (d) because obviously assistant majority whip and vice-chair are some of the examples of "Several posts"

GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep KarishmaB - how would you eliminate (d) ?

i am seeing some experts saying - "Some" cannot refer to only two items.

But in critical reasoning - "Some" just means, at-least 1.

So i dont know why "Some" in option D has to refer to 3 or more items when in critical reasoning "Some" refers to at-least 1.

I dont see why option (d) is wrong.

could you assist please ?

Hi jabhatta2.

It appears that you have a misconception of the meaning of "including."

It doesn't mean "along with." Rather, it means "containing as a part(s)" or "among them."

So, we can see that the following sentence doesn't make sense.

I ate 10 burgers including 3 diet cokes.

because it means

I ate 10 burgers among them 3 diet cokes.

In other words, it conveys that 10 burgers included or contained among them 3 diet cokes, as if diet cokes are burgers.

On the other hand, the following sentence does make sense.

Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts, including assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

because it means

Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts, among them assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

So, it conveys that contained as parts or among the posts Daniel Inouye was appointed to were assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

This is not correct. 'Including' is used to give specific examples that you want to emphasize for some reason.

e.g. I ate 10 burgers including one with mushrooms.
You will likely say this if for some reason, mushrooms are specifically relevant to you and your listener.
Here you ate total 10 burgers only.

I saw 10 pumpkins in the garden including an artificial one.
Here you saw total 10 pumpkins only.
etc.

Grammatically there is nothing wrong with (D). It is only about acceptable usage.

'including' is routinely used to give specific examples in formal writing.

'some of which were' functions as a modifier.
Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic party during his first term, some of which were critical to the country's security.
Here the number of such posts is not defined.

When you have to name an exact number of posts, using 'some' is odd, not incorrect though. It is about what formal language expects.

some = an UNSPECIFIED number or amount of
Correct:
Some of the students are quite tall.
Here, the number of students is unspecified.
Illogical:
Some of the tallest students are John and Mary.
Here, the blue portion refers to EXACTLY TWO STUDENTS (John and Mary).
Since the number of students is SPECIFIED, this usage of some is inappropriate.
Correct:
Two of the tallest students are John and Mary.

D: United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the Democratic party during his first term, some of which were assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.
Here, which is standing in for posts.
As a result, the red portion conveys the following meaning:
Some of the posts were assistant majority whip and vice-chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee.
The conveyed meaning refers to EXACTLY TWO POSTS (assistant majority whip and vice-chair).
Since the number of posts is SPECIFIED, this usage of some is illogical.
Eliminate D.

Thanks GMATGuruNY - isn't it strange that "Some" CANNOT refer to only 2 posts.

However in the world of Critical Reasoning and Logic -- "Some" CAN refer to 2.

In fact "Some" can refer to "1" in the world of CR and Logic.