The Talmud briefly recounts the core story of Hanukah, invol

Dear ankushbassi,
Did you read the TE at the link provided?
Mike

@ankushbassi.
if you look at option 2 the clause " with the single day’s supply of oil lasting eight days" modifies the noun Talmud which does not makes sense. Option (3) more aptly put the non-essential clause "involving the single day’s supply of oil that lasts eight days" in context

HTH

mikemcgarry

Hi Mike

Could you kindly provide the official explanation to this tricky SC question? For me as a non native, this one is a horrible jungle of words put together!

Thanks

Dear reto,
I'm happy to respond. As it turns out, your request already had been answered over a year ago when I posted the question. If you follow the link posted with this question, you will find a full explanation.

Does this make sense?
Mike

don't think any option is completely correct as rightly pointed out by daagh.

Dear daagh
With all due respect, my friend, I fail to see anything wrong with the "which" construction is (C). The phrase "of the Maccabees" is a vital noun modifier, so the "which" would apply to the "two books," i.e. to the "two books of the Maccabees." As you may appreciate, a vital noun modifier can interpose between a target noun and a "which" modifier. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear Mike;

Agreed; No issue.

Let me say, yours was one of the best passages seen in recent times.

The Talmud briefly recounts the core story of Hanukkah, involving the single day’s supply of oil lasting eight days, although placing this story in context are events described by the two books of the Maccabees, appearing only in the Roman Catholic Old Testament instead of in the Jewish and Protestant bibles.

(A) The Talmud briefly recounts the core story of Hanukkah, involving the single day’s supply of oil lasting eight days, although placing this story in context are events described by the two books of the Maccabees, appearing only in the Roman Catholic Old Testament instead of in the Jewish and Protestant bibles

(B) The Talmud, briefly recounting the core story of Hanukkah, with the single day’s supply of oil lasting eight days, and only Roman Catholic Old Testament contains the two books of the Maccabees, which places this core story in context, unlike the Jewish and Protestant bibles
--> fragmentt.

(C) The core story of Hanukkah, involving the single day’s supply of oil that lasts eight days, appears briefly in the Talmud, although the events that place this story in context are described in the two books of the Maccabees, which appear in neither the Jewish nor Protestant bibles, but only in the Roman Catholic Old Testament
--> looks good.

(D) The core story of Hanukkah involves the single day’s supply of oil which last eight days, appearing briefly in the Talmud, while the events to place this story in context, described in the two books of the Maccabees, which does not appear in the Jewish and Protestant bibles, but instead in the Roman Catholic Old Testament
--> fragment.

(E) Appearing neither in the Jewish bible nor the Protestant bible, but in the Roman Catholic Old Testament, the two books of the Maccabees provide the context for the core story of Hanukkah, and involves the single day’s supply of oil which last eight days, while it appears briefly in the Talmud.

I have a confusion regarding the correct answer - C.
The core story of Hanukah, involving the single day's supply of oil that lasts eight days, appears briefly in the Talmud, although the events that place this story in context are described in the two books of the Maccabees, which appear in neither the Jewish nor Protestant bibles, but only in the Roman Catholic Old Testament

In the answer, which modifies 2 books of Maccabees. So, do these books appear in the testament? How does it work out with neither the Jewish nor Protestant bibles, but only in the Roman Catholic Old Testament?

Can someone please explain?

Hi,

As you know that ,Which can modify a far off noun in a noun phrase. This is what happening in he option C.
The two links will give you more examples of the same concept.

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/nested-gr ... orrection/

Dear nikhilbhide,

This is Mike McGarry, the author of this question. I'm happy to respond.

My friend, it's not completely clear to me what question you are asking, a grammar question or a question about these ancient writings. It's true that the the pronoun "which" refers to "the two books of the Maccabees"--the "which" clause, a noun modifying clause, obeys the Modifier Touch Rule. That's the grammar, which of course you need to understand for the GMAT.

It's not clear to me whether you only wanted to understand the grammar, or whether you wanted to understand the relationship of these religious texts. While that's entirely beyond anything on the GMAT, I am more than happy to discuss it if it interests you. You can read here about the Maccabees and about Hanukkah. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike

Thanks Mike for the response. Actually, I am clear about the grammar, but not able to understand how 2 books of Maccabees can appear in Jewish nor Protestant bibles (kind of a book).
May be Jewish/Protestant bible is a series of books and 2 books of Maccabees belong to a series. Please let me know whether this understanding is correct?

Dear nikhilbhide,

Aha! I understand your question now, and I am happy to respond.

This is a curious thing about language. First of all, when people say "The Bible," they may be referring to a few different versions (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant); of course, some groups may even say why their version is the real version and others are wrong--we will leave aside those issues. What I will say here is true for any Bible.

You confusion concerns two completely different uses of the word "book."

The Bible, by its very nature, is a compilation of writings from a number of different historical periods. Each section, originally, in ancient times, was a separate scroll. Each section is now called a "book"--this is a secondary definition of the word. Some "books" of the Bible are Leviticus, Proverbs, and Isaiah--those "books" would be in any Bible. If you were to go into a bookstore and buy any version of the Bible, you would be holding a single book (in the ordinary sense of the word). The primary definition of the word "book" is the ordinary definition, the single physical object that you can hold and read. The secondary definition of the word is "an independent section of the Bible, attributed to a single author." Thus, if you were holding the single book, the Bible, and opened it up, the contents would be several "books of the Bible." When we refer to an individual one, such as Judges, we call is a "book" (in the sense of an independent section of the Bible), but of course, physically, all these individual "books" of the Bible are bound together as a single physical book we call the Bible.

My friend, I would say that it's worthwhile to find out a little about the Bible: a little about how it's organized and what it says. This is not so important for the GMAT, but if you plan to be a manager in the modern world, it's important only because it is a book that has had such a monumental impact on the world. Even people in Europe & America who are totally unreligious still act in ways and have values that have been shaped by the Bible. Together, the Bible, the Q'uran, and the Hindu writings have influenced more that half the human race. If you want to be successful in the global economy, it's important to have at least a basic understanding of these books and value systems.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike for the wonderful explanation!!

surely, there will be long SC questions on gmat exams, but test takers need to stay calm, and use the POE method to quickly eliminate wrong option choices one by one.

Hi Mike,

Got it right as I studied Judaism.I eliminated A as I felt the use of instead wasn't appropriate. Please correct me. Also, am following your advice and reading a lot. Have improved. Thank you.

Dear Kezia9,

I'm happy to respond.

Congratulations on getting this very hard SC practice problem correct! Yes, one of the problems in (A) is the very awkward use of "instead of." The GMAT doesn't seem to like this structure even when it's totally grammatically legitimate, but the use in (A) is highly suspect:
. . . instead of in the Jewish and Protestant bibles.
Having one prepositional phrase as the object of another preposition is a train wreck. You are correct: this is one solid reason to reject (A).

I am glad to hear that you are reading and that this discipline is helping you to improve. I wish you the best of luck, my friend!

Mike