None of the typical physical properties, such as color, hardness, and

Hi Mike,

Should the sentence not be 'None of the properties IS known?

Please go through this article of none other than mikemcgarry

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-sente ... agreement/

One external link - https://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/top-10- ... ular-verb/

These links will definitely answer your query...

Abhishek,

Thanks for posting these links-but regardless, I believe we need to have 'Is' and not 'Are'? Do you remember the official question 'None of the potential investors'?

It should be are. None of the other properties are... is the appropriate usage. We do not know if only one property is spoken about or multiple properties are being spoken about in the sentence. Hence, I feel it should be none of the other properties are..

Hi Mike,

How are you ?

I have some questions

1/ the main verb is "ARE"
Flip it: None of properties ARE known.
As I know, "NONE of XXX" is a singular subject, so needs a singular verb "is", here, the main verb is "ARE", a plural verb,
it confused me a lot.

2/ Redundant.
IMO, it is redundant if because (of) and due to
are in one sentence , because both of them introduce a reason,
that's why I cross off A and B.
Is it valid ?


3/ because of VS on account of,
I am curious the comparison
after reading your article https://magoosh.com/gmat/2016/gmat-sente ... e-mistake/

I have a question from GMATPrep:
The golden crab of the Gulf of Mexico has not been fished commercially in great numbers, primarily on account of living at great depths-2,500 to 3,000 feet down.
(A) on account of living
(B) on account of their living
(C) because it lives
(D) because of living
(E) being they live

before reading
my approaching is
the-golden-crab-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-has-not-been-fished-30324-20.html

if you are available , please point out my faults at above topic
brief summary of the crab topic
- Noun is low priority when approach
- on account is idiomatic? what I see more is "account for"
- "because of living at great depth" is correct for me
- divergence with Vicroty47, it is correct that "living" modifies crab, the subject of the sentence


waiting for your reply

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan

First of all, I changed the main verb in the prompt above and on the blog page. Sometimes I don't focus as much as I should on the elements of the sentence that are not part of the underlined section: I have even seen a few mistakes of this sort on official questions. Anyway, on further reflection, I corrected the "are" to "is."

Having "because" and "due to" in the same sentence is not necessarily redundant. It may just indicate a layered discussion of causality, with different causes discussed at different levels. The (A) & (B) have other problems, but it would be perfectly possible to have a valid and logical statement with both "because" and "due to."
The state is raising highway taxes because the frequent traffic delays, due to flooding, necessitate improvements in the highway drainage systems.
Nothing is redundant in that sentence. It just happens that one cause-effect discussion is nestled inside another. The GMAT loves to nest one idea inside another.

The structure "on account of" is a curious structure. I believe it is more common in some regions of the US than in others. It is not particular formal, and it certainly isn't universally accepted. In fact, to my ear, it always sounds a little awkward. I don't believe I have ever seen an official question in which it appeared as part of the correct answer. By contrast, the idiom "to account for" is 100% legitimate and appears frequently on the GMAT.

Now, the GMAT Prep question:
The golden crab of the Gulf of Mexico has not been fished commercially in great numbers, primarily on account of living at great depths-2,500 to 3,000 feet down.
(A) on account of living
(B) on account of their living
(C) because it lives
(D) because of living
(E) being they live
I would eliminate (A) & (B) immediately, because "on account of" sounds awkward to my ear.

I would say that you still are confusing participles and gerunds. Participles are modifiers. Gerunds are NOT modifiers. In choice (D), "living" is a gerund, because it is the object of a preposition. Gerunds take the place of a noun, and as such, they do not modify anything else; after all, nouns typically don't modify anything else. It is crucially important that you understand the difference between participles and gerunds!

I would say that (D) is probably grammatically correct but it is a rhetorical nightmare. It is a sloppy, flabby, indirect way of saying something. Putting the action into a gerund and sticking that gerund inside a prepositional phrase is like hiding the light of the sentence under a bushel basket. Let the action be a verb! Verbs make the sentence active and direct and powerful! Choice (C) is like a 1000 volt wire, and by comparison, (D) is like a 0.5 volt battery. Choice (C) is a much more powerful way to state the information: it jumps out to me as the correct answer, the way a live electrical wire would jump.

Once again, for rhetoric, think about advertisements. The grammar is not always superb, but the rhetoric is usually very powerful. Notice how many times the action word appears as a full verb and how many times it appears as a gerund in a prepositional phrase. The latter is simply not a particularly powerful way to call attention to an action.

Of course, there are circumstances in which [preposition] + [gerund] appears and is perfectly correct on the GMAT, but in those cases, it usually does not involve the action of an action word being sequestered inside a prepositional phrase.

Does all this make sense?

Have a wonderful day, my friend!

Mike

thanks Mike,
I am more clear..

have a nice day
>_~

Hi mike,
I am back here and post a new question ,because we discussed "because (of) " and "due to" above and I want to further discuss a new similar phrase "result from" from GMAT exam 2, rather than discuss one case , although this question exists in other catalog of GC.

here is the question:
Since the start of space age, more and more littering has occured in orbits near Earth, often because of the intentional discarding of lens caps, packing material , fuel tanks and payload covers.

a) more and more littering has occured in orbits near Earth, often because of
b) orbits near Earth have become more and more littered , often from
c) orbits near Earth became littered more and more, often resulting from
d) there have been more and more littering of orbits near Earth, often because of
e) there had been littering more and more of orbits near Earth, often with

from your article ,https://magoosh.com/gmat/2016/gmat-sentence-correction-due-mistake/, I got the idea that "because" modifies target action and that "due to" modifies target noun. Well, my interpretation of "result from" is little.

like this case, I cross off C because I think that it will be better to place "often resulting from" in front of the main clause "orbits near Earth became littered more and more".
because "comma + participle phrase" can indicate causal relationship, if "comma + participle phrase" suggests a cause, then it will be placed in front of the main clause, if "comma + participle phrase" suggests a effect, then it will be placed at the ending of the sentence.
examples from MANHATTAN:
the engineer fixed the problem, earning himself a promotion. -- the effect is "promotion"
Slipping on the ice, she broke her ankle. -- the cause is "slipping"

back to GMAT exam 2 SC question, when "result from" introduces a cause, I think it will be better if place "result from" in front of the main clause.

please confirm my reasoning, and point out.


thanks in advance.

have a nice day
>_~

See my response here.
Mike

Hi mikemcgarry

About the use of NONE, in the following link it is said that
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-sent ... agreement/

Whereas in the following link it is said that
https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-grammar ... 98103.html

I am confused. Would you please help me?

Dear Mahmud6,

I'm happy to respond.

What I said on the Magoosh blog was incorrect. I corrected that mistake on the live blog. We can use "none" with countable or uncountable nouns, and it can be singular or plural.
None of the ocean is . . .
None of the dolphins are . . .
None of the company is . . .
None of the employees are . . .
None of this book is . . .
None of these books are . . .

I am not sure what that GC quote meant by the sentence: "It CANNOT be used with a single count noun." The word "none" certainly can be used with a single collective noun. In fact, we can use "none" with a very specific single noun.
Almost none of this book was written by the author to which it is attributed.
I would disagree with that statement from GC. As you may know, I do not work for GC and I have no authority to change of the posts made by the experts employed by GC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Can someone explain the usage of the colon (:), which is used in option D and E?

Hi Sherlockgun,

A colon ":" is used can be used in a few ways. The two basic uses on the GMAT are that It can act as a semi colon ";", where it splits two independent clauses, or it can act as a list. For example, I like the following as much as my brother: Ham, turkey, and tomato.

Here is a link: https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp -- yet another use of a colon is to introduce an item

Hi Mike,

Your original post with plural for "None of the typical physical properties" was correct. The guy above just confused you with IS. Please change again to ARE. Thanks.

Is punctuation tested on the GMAT?

Hi,

Structure of Due To: Noun + "is/was" + Due to + Noun. 

Here we have "is" : is known: due to its high radioactivity, it almost immediately decays into something else

Also, if i replace due to with caused by: "caused by high radioactivity.." it makes sense according to me. Could some help?

Hi Kritisood,

We have to look at the whole thing:
... due to its high radioactivity, it almost immediately decays into something else...
... caused by to its high radioactivity, it almost immediately decays into something else...

Now, what is caused by its high radioactivity? The it itself, or the it almost immediately decays? We don't want to say "caused by X, Y decays into Z" if Y is not the thing that is caused by X. That is, we would prefer not to use due to to provide the reason for the entire thought Y decays into Z.

An easy way to take similar calls in the future is to remember that switching the due to to the beginning doesn't make a difference. So if
... it almost immediately decays into something else, due to its high radioactivity...
is not correct,
... due to its high radioactivity, it almost immediately decays into something else...
will also not be correct.