According to medieval monks, the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guin

the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere were found at Glastonbury Abbey in A.D. 1191 --- please help me understand why this is not an independent clause .

Subject = Remains
Verb = Found
Hence I thought this was an independent clause capable of standing on its own.


Again " Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription " this also looks like an independent clause.

Subject - Arthur's Coffin.
Verb = Marked.

So by choosing B aren't we creating a run on sentence.

Here is the sentence in its entirety with option B , does this sound correct? It certainly looks like a run on.

the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere were found at Glastonbury Abbey in A.D. 1191, Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription (in Latin): "Here Lies Arthurs, The Once and Future King."

Please help me correct any flaw, if any, in my understanding ,Thank you.

The answer is B

Meaning

We are told that the remains of remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere were found at Glastonbury Abbey in A.D. 1191 and the king Arthur's coffin was marked with the inscription "Here Lies Arthurs, The Once and Future King."

Structure

Clause 1:According to medieval monks, the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere were found at Glastonbury Abbey in A.D. 1191
Clause 2:and Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription
Clause 3: "Here Lies Arthurs, The Once and Future King."

Analysis : Clause 1 has no error it is an IC , clause 2 is connected with the clause 1 with the connector and
but we note that and connects two ICs , compound verbs or compound verbs .Here clause 2 is neither it is not a full sentence .So it does not maintain parallelism
Clause 3 is followed by colon that means it contains further information abut the preceding sentence .There is no error in clause 3

Now one way to remove the error in clause is to connect two clauses with and .
The next way is to remove and make the clause act as a modifier , choice B does that .

According to medieval monks, the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere were found at Glastonbury Abbey in A.D. 1191, and Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription (in Latin); "Here Lies Arthur, The Once and Future King."

A) and Arthur’s coffin marked with the inscription --> coffin noun is not parallel w/ previous, it should be appositive
B) Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription --> correct
C) and the inscription was marked on Arthur's coffin --> inscription should be nearby
D) the inscription that was marked on the coffin of Arthur --> same as C
E) the Coffin of Arthur had the inscription marked --> same as C

Experts please help us understand how the answer is B..

" Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription"
can somebody please explain in details what it modifies ?

Anju wrote

Dear Anju
You are aware that in English prose in general, there are four types of sentences which include a simple sentence with a modifier supplement. Let me give an example.



Here the main clause ends at town planning. What follows is a modifier that describes the advanced principles of such a modern city. You may see, that the modifier is not a clause since the word 'designed' is a past participle, 'connecting' is a present participle, and 'provided' is one more past participle.
In the same way, 'Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription' is a modifier of the previous clause namely, the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere were found at Glastonbury Abbey in A.D. 1191.

isn't it "ed-modifier modifies the closest noun only?? Please correct me if i am wrong. How its modifying the remains ....m not able to get it.

Jrk
I am not clear which 'ed modifier' you say is modifying the remains; I suppose you are not referring the word'marked'. As you may see, it promptly modifies the coffin that is just in front. More importantly, is it correct to say that 'ed modifiers' modify the noun in front? Can it not modify a logical modifyee that might lie a little away, if the noun just in front isn't sensible?

I suppose you have no doubts about B as the correct choice in this GMATPrep question. Can you please suggest any other reason for B to be correct or any other choice if B is is incorrect?

Thanks in advance.

generis

I am in a toss in between option B and C.


1. Is this the case of Noun+Noun Modifier modifying 'the remains of King Arthur'??
Noun:- Arthur's coffin
Noun Modifier:- Marked with the inscription

2. Is it the case of -ed modifiers(marked)??
On what basis we say that this option is correct??


This seems to be fine to me. The remains of A and B were found , and the inscription was marked on A's coffin.
What is wrong with this one???

daagh
" the modern city of Jaipur.....,and the buildings provided with seamless drainage."

Kindly explain how the second modifier",and the buildings provided... "Modifies the main clause?

Kindly also explain me why did we use comma before and at the starting of second modifier. And what will be the sentence structure if there is no comma before and.

Posted from my mobile device

Both the first and the second modifiers are compound modifiers connected by the conjunction 'and'. If the second modifier phrase is not modifying, what else could be its role in the context?

The Comma before the second modifier is a typo and it is not a critical game-changer. As you may know. punctuation is not counted in GMAT, but we punctuate more for clarity than for grammar. HTH

warrior1991 , this question is brutal. Good questions. +1 I can see why you like option (C).
The errors in Option C are subtle. Option (B) uses an absolute phrase, a difficult and rare construct.

No, but you are close. (You did not mention that the noun + noun phrase modifies the event in the main clause, so I assume that you are not describing an absolute phrase.)
You describe an appositive, which re-describes or re-names the noun.
A noun and its appositive are usually interchangeable and if not, they are very similar.
This phrase is not an appositive.

Arthur's coffin . . . is not similar to the remains of King Arthur.

• absolute phrase
In option B, we have an absolute phrase. As is commonly the case, the structure is
noun + noun modifier that includes a participle

Absolute phrases are described HERE. (I know you've seen them before. Others might need the link.)

The absolute phrase in (B) expands upon the action of the main clause sentence.
remains were discovered. . . , Arthur's coffin marked with the inscription (in Latin): XYZ
The italicized portion modifies the event in the main clause.

Absolute phrases are very rare on the GMAT. (I can't recall a single one at the moment.)


On the basis that the odd-sounding thing attached to the sentence is a correctly-construed absolute phrase and the other options have errors. (my emphasis) Your passion for learning is awesome. True, this absolute phrase is a little disconnected logically . . .

This example is a more typical absolute phrase, taken from HERE:
The family devoured Aunt Lenora's carrot cake, their fingers scraping the leftover frosting from the plates.

The italicized part is not an appositive. It does not describe the carrot cake. It cannot describe the family. It gives an extra detail about the action in the main clause. The connection between the main clause and the absolute phrase is clear.

By contrast, the absolute phrase in option (B) is more similar to this one, taken from HERE (from Stephen Crane, "The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky"):
The man stood laughing, his weapons at his hips.

The logical connection between the absolute phrase and main clause is tenuous. The connection in (B) is a little better, though I would expect to hear more about the discovery of the people or their remains, not about the coffin in which one was buried.

• Errors in (C): (1) possible ambiguity and (2) THE

• (1) possible ambiguity:
-- the monks did not claim that they themselves discovered the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere—but someone discovered the remains.

Problem? It could sound as though whoever discovered the remains also etched an inscription on the coffin.
Perhaps when the remains were found, the inscription was marked (right after discovery) by the people who found the remains.

It's better to avoid any possibility of ambiguity in meaning and choose (B).
Option (C) would be clearer written this way:

and an inscription [had been] marked on Arthur's coffin (in Latin): "Here Lies Arthur, The Once and Future King."
Had been marked indicates that the coffin was marked before the remains were discovered. (Past perfect.)

I don't read (C) as suggesting that the monks put the inscription on.

• THE inscription????? (This error bothered me more than #1.)
-- THE inscription implies that the inscription was mentioned. Well, that inscription was not mentioned. I wondered, "Did I miss something?"

The sentence gets stranger, because a sudden appearance of "the inscription" is followed by a particular description of the specific thing that had NOT been mentioned before THE.

I eliminated (C) immediately based on that error.

We could correct the error by mentioning a non-specific inscription using the word AN or THIS, both of which signal that we are about to get further information after the colon (the quoted inscription).
... and an inscription was [had been] marked on Arthur's coffin: "XYZ."

(B) is the better answer.

Your questions are very good. I hope that analysis helps.

ChiranjeevSingh GMATNinja VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber MartyTargetTestPrep IanStewart AnthonyRitz CJandAnish AjiteshArun

Hello experts.

Please find my reasoning to reject option A & E.Also do share your reasoning why C & D are incorrect but B is correct.

A: No'verb' present in the independent clause starting with 'and'-Wrong

E: No conjunction present.Two Independent sentences joint by 'comma' Wrong.

B: Absolute phrase.Seems to be Grammatically correct.

C: independent sentence joint properly by 'and'.Seems grammatically correct

D: Noun+noun modifier: Seems to be Grammatically correct.

Please share your reasoning why C&D are incorrect. Also whether my understanding above is correct.

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

The issue here isn't precisely about the structural understanding you shared above. It's about how these components logically relate to one another.

In C, "the remains... were found" and "the inscription was marked" are parallel elements, but this suggests that the marking was done when the coffin was found, which is not logically correct. Furthermore, in both this answer and D, "the inscription" is improperly placed, such that it doesn't clearly connect to its text "Here Lies Arthur, The Once and Future King." As a result, it is unclear what "the" inscription means, and it is unclear what the final phrase describes.

D has the same verb/timeline issue, since the marking logically should have come before the finding from the first clause (note that B avoids this issue by using "marked" as a participle -- participles do not have tense). Again D does not place "the inscription" by the text of that same inscription. This answer is otherwise a modifier akin to that in B, and there's just no way in which this option is better than, or even as good as, that alternative.

AnthonyRitz

Thanks for the prompt response.

Though i have got the clarity regarding the placement of 'Inscription', which i believe should be adjacent to the phrase it modifies, I couldn't understand timeline relation between two clauses that are according to medieval monks.I feel: 1. findings of remains & 2.inscription on the coffin are two facts stated by monks.However in C & D- how to reason that two CLAUSES are related with TIMELINE, is still difficult to understand even after reading your response.

kindly share your inputs

Both verbs are in the simple past -- "were found" and "was marked." The reasonable inference is that these two events in the same tense happened at the same time. The marking of the inscription happened when the coffin was found. This, of course, is not the point of the sentence and is either illogical or at best ambiguous.

AnthonyRitz : I have got your point and can sense the level of reasoning GMAT tests.

However, my last question is while reading option B,which is an absolute phrase, with the complete argument, pls share if this phrase is a statement made by the author,who wrote the argument, or this phrase is stated as a fact as per monks.

Reading the option B with the complete argument, sort of sound as if this phrase is mentioned by the author & not monks to give additional information from what monks said.