I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

It is currently 09 Dec 2016, 05:38
GMAT Club Tests

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 504
Schools: Harvard, Columbia, Stern, Booth, LSB,
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 665 [0], given: 241

I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jan 2013, 21:09
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they function,how they are created & how they are tested on GMAT.

As per Manhattan GMAT
Subgroup Modifiers- When you want to describe a part of a larger group with a modifier, use one of the following three Subgroup Modifier constructions.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF WHICH WERE only recently discovered.
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF WHICH only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is incorrect or why verb is required after WHICH
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF THEM only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is correct even though verb is not present after them.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is correct.
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, OF WHICH SOME WERE only recently discovered.- Why this sentence is incorrect.


Hope you don't mind taking time to explain these concepts.

With Regards,
Fame
_________________

If you like my Question/Explanation or the contribution, Kindly appreciate by pressing KUDOS.
Kudos always maximizes GMATCLUB worth
-Game Theory

If you have any question regarding my post, kindly pm me or else I won't be able to reply

Request Expert Reply
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manhattan GMAT Discount CodesVeritas Prep GMAT Discount CodesMagoosh Discount Codes
Expert Post
8 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3638
Followers: 1249

Kudos [?]: 5655 [8] , given: 60

Re: Subgroup Modifiers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2013, 12:07
8
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fameatop wrote:
I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they function,how they are created & how they are tested on GMAT.

As per Manhattan GMAT
Subgroup Modifiers- When you want to describe a part of a larger group with a modifier, use one of the following three Subgroup Modifier constructions.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF WHICH WERE only recently discovered.
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF WHICH only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is incorrect or why verb is required after WHICH
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF THEM only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is correct even though verb is not present after them.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is correct.
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, OF WHICH SOME WERE only recently discovered.- Why this sentence is incorrect.

Hope you don't mind taking time to explain these concepts.
With Regards, Fame

Dear Fame,
One of the strengths of MGMAT is that they are hyper-thorough about everything. In a way, a weakness of this approach is that they can get you to worry about something that's not particular common. I would estimate that if you took 20 GMATs in a row, you would only see "sub-group modifiers" once or twice. It's just not that common.

First of all, what is a subgroup modifier? Suppose the main clause of a sentence is talking about some large group ---- the Japanese, the auto industry workers, sea mammals, small towns in the US Midwest, the integers, the elements on the Periodic Table, verbs in the French language, Oscar-winning movies, etc. etc. ---- any large group of anything. Suppose the main clause says something about this large group in its entirety, and we want to make a further clarification either about the whole group or about some part of the group ----
1) All German people are blah blah blah, but some of them are blah blah blah.
2) Blah blah blah migratory birds, most of which are blah blah blah.
3) Blah blah blah subway trains in NYC, all having blah blah blah.
Those underlined phrase are examples of grammatically correct sub-group modifiers --- modifiers which talk about either part of the whole group (as in #1 & #2) or which add further clarification to the whole group (#3).

Keep in mind, first of all, that in any of these, the "part" word could be any of what MGMAT calls the SAMAN words (some, any, none, all, more, most) or any quantity word (many, few, each, both, either, neither, half, one, etc.).

Now, what's going on with the different grammatical structures following these?

The words "which" and "who" & "whom" are relative pronouns --- these have to introduce a full [noun]+[verb] clause --- in fact, the relative pronoun will act as the noun in the clause, so it must be followed by a bonafide verb.
4) I admire firemen, few of whom would do X. = correct ("whom" is followed by a bonafide verb)
5) I have a low opinion of NY Yankees fans, many of whom doing X. = incorrect ("whom" + participle is not complete)
6) I read a book about Chinese dynasty, most of which lasted blah blah blah. = correct. same as #4
7) The city council took an extensive survey of houses in Berkeley, none of which having blah blah blah. = incorrect, same as #5

By contrast, suppose instead of a relative pronoun, we want to use an ordinary pronoun, "them" --- "some of them", "all of them", "most of them", etc. ---- now, this phrase is a noun, and we have two options
(a) an absolute phrase = [noun + participle]
(b) a coordinating conjunction (e.g. "and", "or", "but", etc.) and another independent clause = [noun] + [verb]
8) She wrote her dissertation on mollusks, some of them growing blah blah blah. = correct, absolute phrase
9) The Protestant Churches believe blah blah blah, but some of them also believe blah blah blah. = correct, two independent clauses, correctly joined by a coordinating conjunction.
10) The winner carried Ohio in all president elections since 1964, two of them involved a major third-party candidate. = incorrect, run-on sentence = tow independent clauses not properly joined by a conjunction.

The foregoing should explain why the correct sentence in the MGMAT are correct. Now, let's look at the sentences MGMAT cites as incorrect:
11) The Standard Model explains all known subatomic particles, of which some of them were only recently discovered. = Two pronouns = redundant. Basically you have a [noun][noun] structure, as in "My friend he is intelligent." This occurs in colloquial speech, but it is incorrect in formal speech and never will be acceptable on the GMAT.
12) The Standard Model explains all known subatomic particles, some of them which were were only recently discovered. This has the incorrect structure [independent clause][noun][modifier], as in "The store is open, the street which was recently paved." = nonsense. That's the problem with this one.
13) The Standard Model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which only recently discovered. = same mistake as #5 & #7 above.

Notice the general format [independent clause][noun][modifier] can be correct if the noun is an appositive phrase modifying something in the sentence, such as
14) Lincoln was a noble man, a president who guided the country through war. = the noun "president" is an appositive, modifying either "man" or "Lincoln."
The problem, though, is that a subgroup ("some of them", "most of them", etc.) can never be an appositive for the whole group, which is why this otherwise acceptable structure is illegal in this context.
BTW, the "model" discussed in the MGMAT example sentences is known in Particle Physics as "the Standard Model", which is why I included this in the sentences.

Does all this answer your questions?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3638
Followers: 1249

Kudos [?]: 5655 [1] , given: 60

Re: I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2014, 08:17
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
shriramvelamuri wrote:
Hi Mike

Can I ask you one more question with subgroup modifier, please. In the MGMAT there is this example in page no 240.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which were only recently discovered.


the associated example includes.,
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which only recently discovered.

I understood that WERE is a must when using the which construction. In the page no 250 MGMAT has a similar sentence that is correct according to MGMAT but the sentence is lacking WERE.

The houses on the canal street, many of which had been damaged in the storm, looked abandoned.

My question, Is it compulsory to use the word WERE when referring to subgroup while the using the WHICH construction.

Please could you help me with this.

Dear shriramvelamuri,
I'm happy to help. My friend, regardless of whether it is used in a subgroup modifier, the word "which," ALWAYS introduces a subordinate clause, and in fact, it's always the subject of that subordinate clause. Thus, the word "which" must always be followed by a full verb. That's a rule you definitely need to know.

Some full verbs involve "were" and some don't. I don't know where you found this "rule" that "which" must be followed by "were" when used in a subgroup modifier --- that is hogwash! The issue of subgroup modifiers is irrelevant to the questions about the use of "which." The word "which" must always be followed by a full verb. The following are examples of full verbs, with X & Y a subjects:
X sings.
X and Y sing.
X sang.
X has sung.
X and Y have sung.
X will sing.
X had sung.
X is singing.
X and Y are singing.
X was singing.
X & Y were singing.

All of those are full verbs, of different tenses. A few tenses involve "were," especially in a passive construction.

My friend, I think you need to forget about subgroup modifiers for the moment and learn more about verbs and the various forms of verbs (tenses, subjunctive, active vs. passive)
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-verb- ... ct-tenses/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-verbs ... ive-tense/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/active-vs- ... -the-gmat/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... ive-tense/

Subgroup modifiers is a rare topic that could appear on a single SC question on the GMAT. By contrast, verbs will be part of every single sentence, and many of the SC sentences on the GMAT will involve splits that change the form of verbs.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3638
Followers: 1249

Kudos [?]: 5655 [1] , given: 60

Re: I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2015, 09:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
sourpatch wrote:
Hi Mike, thank you so much for your explanation. I had one follow-up question related to your response.

I now understand that there are a few options to deal with these types of modifiers. I've listed a few below:

[Absolute Phrase] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them being terrible workers.
[Relative Pronoun] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of whom were terrible workers.
[Conjunction] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, because all of them were terrible workers.

But, would the following sentence be correct? My goal was to use an appositive construction with one of MGMAT's SANAM pronouns.

[Appositive Phrase] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of the terrible workers.

Thanks!

Dear sourpatch,
I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, I am going to caution you against creating your own example sentences, as none of these sentence are particularly GMAT-like. It's much better if you can find example sentence in context in sophisticated reading.

A few comments.
1) For the Absolute Phrase
Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them being terrible workers.
The word "being" sounds awkward. A more sophisticated way to say this would be
Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them terrible workers.
In fact, instead of the comma after "fired", I could imagine a writing using an em-dash. This gets into very sophisticated punctuation issues, well beyond the GMAT.

2) For the Appositive Phrase
Your sentence sounds awkward. Also, notice that in this fourth sentence you changed the meaning from the first three. In the first three, these three workers were all terrible, but it left open the question whether there were also other terrible workers. In the fourth, it's clear that those three are the only three terrible workers, a very different meaning.
With the first meaning, I would say:
Jane, John, and Joe---all terrible workers---were fired.
Setting off the appositive with em-dashes feels more natural. For the second meaning, I would say:
All of the terrible workers---Jane, John, and Joe---were fired.

Your examples with the Relative Pronoun and with the Subordinate Conjunction are fine.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2013
Posts: 315
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 113

Re: I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2014, 12:59
Hi Mike

Can I ask you one more question with subgroup modifier, please.


In the MGMAT there is this example in page no 240.

Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which were only recently discovered.


the associated example includes.,

Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which only recently discovered.


I understood that WERE is a must when using the which construction.

In the page no 250 MGMAT has a similar sentence that is correct according to MGMAT but the sentence is lacking WERE.

The houses on the canal street, many of which had been damaged in the storm, looked abandoned.

My question,

Is it compulsory to use the word WERE when referring to subgroup while the using the WHICH construction.

Please could you help me with this.


mikemcgarry wrote:
fameatop wrote:
I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they function,how they are created & how they are tested on GMAT.

As per Manhattan GMAT
Subgroup Modifiers- When you want to describe a part of a larger group with a modifier, use one of the following three Subgroup Modifier constructions.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF WHICH WERE only recently discovered.
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF WHICH only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is incorrect or why verb is required after WHICH
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME OF THEM only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is correct even though verb is not present after them.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, SOME only recently discovered. - Why this sentence is correct.
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, OF WHICH SOME WERE only recently discovered.- Why this sentence is incorrect.

Hope you don't mind taking time to explain these concepts.
With Regards, Fame

Dear Fame,
One of the strengths of MGMAT is that they are hyper-thorough about everything. In a way, a weakness of this approach is that they can get you to worry about something that's not particular common. I would estimate that if you took 20 GMATs in a row, you would only see "sub-group modifiers" once or twice. It's just not that common.

First of all, what is a subgroup modifier? Suppose the main clause of a sentence is talking about some large group ---- the Japanese, the auto industry workers, sea mammals, small towns in the US Midwest, the integers, the elements on the Periodic Table, verbs in the French language, Oscar-winning movies, etc. etc. ---- any large group of anything. Suppose the main clause says something about this large group in its entirety, and we want to make a further clarification either about the whole group or about some part of the group ----
1) All German people are blah blah blah, but some of them are blah blah blah.
2) Blah blah blah migratory birds, most of which are blah blah blah.
3) Blah blah blah subway trains in NYC, all having blah blah blah.
Those underlined phrase are examples of grammatically correct sub-group modifiers --- modifiers which talk about either part of the whole group (as in #1 & #2) or which add further clarification to the whole group (#3).

Keep in mind, first of all, that in any of these, the "part" word could be any of what MGMAT calls the SAMAN words (some, any, none, all, more, most) or any quantity word (many, few, each, both, either, neither, half, one, etc.).

Now, what's going on with the different grammatical structures following these?

The words "which" and "who" & "whom" are relative pronouns --- these have to introduce a full [noun]+[verb] clause --- in fact, the relative pronoun will act as the noun in the clause, so it must be followed by a bonafide verb.
4) I admire firemen, few of whom would do X. = correct ("whom" is followed by a bonafide verb)
5) I have a low opinion of NY Yankees fans, many of whom doing X. = incorrect ("whom" + participle is not complete)
6) I read a book about Chinese dynasty, most of which lasted blah blah blah. = correct. same as #4
7) The city council took an extensive survey of houses in Berkeley, none of which having blah blah blah. = incorrect, same as #5

By contrast, suppose instead of a relative pronoun, we want to use an ordinary pronoun, "them" --- "some of them", "all of them", "most of them", etc. ---- now, this phrase is a noun, and we have two options
(a) an absolute phrase = [noun + participle]
(b) a coordinating conjunction (e.g. "and", "or", "but", etc.) and another independent clause = [noun] + [verb]
8) She wrote her dissertation on mollusks, some of them growing blah blah blah. = correct, absolute phrase
9) The Protestant Churches believe blah blah blah, but some of them also believe blah blah blah. = correct, two independent clauses, correctly joined by a coordinating conjunction.
10) The winner carried Ohio in all president elections since 1964, two of them involved a major third-party candidate. = incorrect, run-on sentence = tow independent clauses not properly joined by a conjunction.

The foregoing should explain why the correct sentence in the MGMAT are correct. Now, let's look at the sentences MGMAT cites as incorrect:
11) The Standard Model explains all known subatomic particles, of which some of them were only recently discovered. = Two pronouns = redundant. Basically you have a [noun][noun] structure, as in "My friend he is intelligent." This occurs in colloquial speech, but it is incorrect in formal speech and never will be acceptable on the GMAT.
12) The Standard Model explains all known subatomic particles, some of them which were were only recently discovered. This has the incorrect structure [independent clause][noun][modifier], as in "The store is open, the street which was recently paved." = nonsense. That's the problem with this one.
13) The Standard Model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which only recently discovered. = same mistake as #5 & #7 above.

Notice the general format [independent clause][noun][modifier] can be correct if the noun is an appositive phrase modifying something in the sentence, such as
14) Lincoln was a noble man, a president who guided the country through war. = the noun "president" is an appositive, modifying either "man" or "Lincoln."
The problem, though, is that a subgroup ("some of them", "most of them", etc.) can never be an appositive for the whole group, which is why this otherwise acceptable structure is illegal in this context.
BTW, the "model" discussed in the MGMAT example sentences is known in Particle Physics as "the Standard Model", which is why I included this in the sentences.

Does all this answer your questions?

Mike :-)

_________________

Kudos to you, for helping me with some KUDOS.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2015, 17:20
mikemcgarry wrote:
shriramvelamuri wrote:
Hi Mike

Can I ask you one more question with subgroup modifier, please. In the MGMAT there is this example in page no 240.
Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which were only recently discovered.


the associated example includes.,
Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which only recently discovered.

I understood that WERE is a must when using the which construction. In the page no 250 MGMAT has a similar sentence that is correct according to MGMAT but the sentence is lacking WERE.

The houses on the canal street, many of which had been damaged in the storm, looked abandoned.

My question, Is it compulsory to use the word WERE when referring to subgroup while the using the WHICH construction.

Please could you help me with this.

Dear shriramvelamuri,
I'm happy to help. My friend, regardless of whether it is used in a subgroup modifier, the word "which," ALWAYS introduces a subordinate clause, and in fact, it's always the subject of that subordinate clause. Thus, the word "which" must always be followed by a full verb. That's a rule you definitely need to know.

Some full verbs involve "were" and some don't. I don't know where you found this "rule" that "which" must be followed by "were" when used in a subgroup modifier --- that is hogwash! The issue of subgroup modifiers is irrelevant to the questions about the use of "which." The word "which" must always be followed by a full verb. The following are examples of full verbs, with X & Y a subjects:
X sings.
X and Y sing.
X sang.
X has sung.
X and Y have sung.
X will sing.
X had sung.
X is singing.
X and Y are singing.
X was singing.
X & Y were singing.

All of those are full verbs, of different tenses. A few tenses involve "were," especially in a passive construction.

Subgroup modifiers is a rare topic that could appear on a single SC question on the GMAT. By contrast, verbs will be part of every single sentence, and many of the SC sentences on the GMAT will involve splits that change the form of verbs.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)



Hi Mike, thank you so much for your explanation. I had one follow-up question related to your response.

I now understand that there are a few options to deal with these types of modifiers. I've listed a few below:

[Absolute Phrase] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them being terrible workers.
[Relative Pronoun] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of whom were terrible workers.
[Conjunction] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, because all of them were terrible workers.

But, would the following sentence be correct? My goal was to use an appositive construction with one of MGMAT's SANAM pronouns.

[Appositive Phrase] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of the terrible workers.

Thanks!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2015, 10:25
mikemcgarry wrote:
sourpatch wrote:
Hi Mike, thank you so much for your explanation. I had one follow-up question related to your response.

I now understand that there are a few options to deal with these types of modifiers. I've listed a few below:

[Absolute Phrase] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them being terrible workers.
[Relative Pronoun] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of whom were terrible workers.
[Conjunction] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, because all of them were terrible workers.

But, would the following sentence be correct? My goal was to use an appositive construction with one of MGMAT's SANAM pronouns.

[Appositive Phrase] Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of the terrible workers.

Thanks!

Dear sourpatch,
I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, I am going to caution you against creating your own example sentences, as none of these sentence are particularly GMAT-like. It's much better if you can find example sentence in context in sophisticated reading.

A few comments.
1) For the Absolute Phrase
Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them being terrible workers.
The word "being" sounds awkward. A more sophisticated way to say this would be
Jane, John, and Joe were fired, all of them terrible workers.
In fact, instead of the comma after "fired", I could imagine a writing using an em-dash. This gets into very sophisticated punctuation issues, well beyond the GMAT.

2) For the Appositive Phrase
Your sentence sounds awkward. Also, notice that in this fourth sentence you changed the meaning from the first three. In the first three, these three workers were all terrible, but it left open the question whether there were also other terrible workers. In the fourth, it's clear that those three are the only three terrible workers, a very different meaning.
With the first meaning, I would say:
Jane, John, and Joe---all terrible workers---were fired.
Setting off the appositive with em-dashes feels more natural. For the second meaning, I would say:
All of the terrible workers---Jane, John, and Joe---were fired.

Your examples with the Relative Pronoun and with the Subordinate Conjunction are fine.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Thanks, Mike. That makes sense! I appreciate your response.
Re: I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they   [#permalink] 24 Aug 2015, 10:25
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
67 Experts publish their posts in the topic What are modifiers !! sivasanjeev 5 06 Jan 2014, 11:39
2 I want to know when to use 'Having been'? How it is used? It Aristocrat 2 05 Jan 2013, 22:18
I know that modifiers are supposed to touch the noun the tomcal36dc 1 30 Jun 2011, 09:03
I know that "that" is a essential modifier. I have voodoochild 3 09 Jun 2011, 19:08
Has anyone used powerscore SC bible? i just wanted to know empty_spaces 0 10 Sep 2007, 11:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by

I want to know what are Subgroup modifiers, how they

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.