Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed

(A) Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - modifier placed wrong.Here 'reared apart from each other' modifier is compared to a study....incorrect option

(B) Reared apart from each other, striking similarities between identical twins that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior were shown in a recent United States study....wrong placing of modifier...incorrect option

(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - modifier should be placed as closer to what it is meant to modify and therefore ambiguity in meaning makes this option incorrect

(D) According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - comma +ing modifier refers back to the striking similarities shown by the twins.....this is the best option and hence correct...

(E) According to a recent United States study, identical twins showed striking similarities reared apart from each other, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - misplaced modifier and wrong placing of "reared apart" away from the noun it is meant to modify.....incorrect option

IMO D

Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

(A) Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - Modifier issue - a study was not reared apart from each other
(B) Reared apart from each other, striking similarities between identical twins that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior were shown in a recent United States study. - same as A
(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - That include is too far from striking similarities
(D) According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - Correct
(E) According to a recent United States study, identical twins showed striking similarities reared apart from each other, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior. - modifier "reared apart from each other" should be near the modifier entity twins; including is far from the modified entity striking similarities

Answer D

'Reared apart from each other ' modifies 'identical twins ' which is not the case in option A and B. Hence eliminated.
Option C and E are the cases of misplaced Modifier ' include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.'. In both the options, it is modifying 'each other ' but not the ' striking similarities '. Hence eliminated.
Correct option D.

Give Kudos if you find this helpful.
Happy to Help

Quote:

Meaning:-
According to United States study
1.The identical twins are reared apart from each other.
2. They show striking similarities including many idiosyncrasies of behavior

Modifier issue. a recent United States study is not reared apart from each other. Incorrect.


Modifier issue. striking similarities are not reared apart from each other. Incorrect.


Change in meaning. That has an incorrect reference.It incorrectly refers to twins reared apart. Incorrect.


This is correct structure.


similarities are not reared apart from each other

IMO D.

Reared apart from each other, a recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.


Misplaced modifier. IMO, you look at this and what immediately hits you is that the sentence isn't structured properly. "including many..." also seems like a run-on sentence to me here. I'd find this incorrect.


Same as A, the 'meaning' element is missing from this answer choice.


It starts with "A recent" and I think the sentence should be more in simple present. Not sure if 'showed' is correct here. Secondly, 'that' reference seems incorrect.


The best construction thus far, so let's keep this in the race. 'Reared apart' in this sentence is also correctly modifying the twins.


'Reared apart' is incorrectly modifying striking similarities. It should be modifying the twins though.

Correct Answer: D

Official Explanation:

Choices A, B, C, and E all contain errors of modification. The phrase reared apart from each other is intended to describe the twins, but grammatically it modifies the nearest noun phrase. Thus, in A, it illogically describes a recent study, and, in B and E, it illogically describes striking simi­ larities. In C, the adjective clause that include many idiosyn­ crasies of behavior is awkwardly and confusingly separated from its antecedent, similarities. Only D, the best choice, presents a logical and clear statement.

i wanted to ask "what is the subject of action Verb " showed"....." i think its study not the twins ....but in "C" its correct .... i know we have other error in "c" but please let me know what is the subject for " Showed" ....

As per me its the study that showed the similarities...

Thanks in advance #gmatninja

jrk23

The intended meaning of the sentece suggests us that the study showed something !! what is that something?? IT IS THE PHENOMENON and not some particular.
The study showed that IT reared part from each other actually have striking similarities..first of all why is the author saying that it is striking?? because if two beings are raised apart from each other we might expect different behaviorial tendencices but the study showed otherwise...now the study did not actually show the "Similarities" but it showed a finding/phenomenon that Identical twins reared apart from each other showed Similafrities...


(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.
- IN this option the study actually shows similarities in IT ...by placing the noun (twins) and its modifiers reared apart from each other in a latter modifieeri part we are emphasizing on just the "Similarities" ..but we loose the main emphaisis " identical twins reared apart from each other" ...see " in identical twons....." is modifiying "striking similarities" ..so the latter part becomes additional info ..but this construtions downplays that actual emphaisis !

(D) According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

This sentence promotes the main highlight of the study "identical twins reared apart from each other" and then tells us what they found..see by forst proiding context (IT reared apart) the author then provides the main info..by providing the context first we get to know why the study findings were acually great "Striking" ...

If this explanation does not suffice please let me know

Hi,

I have a doubt regarding option D.
As i understand, -ing modifiers either modify preceding noun(w/o comma) or modify preceding clause( by either explaining the 'how' or the 'result' aspect of the sentence.
As per this choice, including should modify similiarities, but is rather modifying 'studies', hence I was hesitant in selecting this choice, although I can clearly see that the other choices are incorrect.
Is there any flaw in my understanding??
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!!

Pavan
Hi



We might notice a new dimension of the word 'including' here. We mostly see a verb+ing participle when preceded by a comma as an adverbial modifier modifying the subject and more importantly its action.

As per that tenet, 'including' in the given context of D does not modify the identical twins showing striking similarities. On the contrary, it is modifying the similarities.

However, the word 'including' may not modify 'studies' or 'study' and it doesn't mean much to say that the study included many idiosyncrasies.

The new dimension of the word 'including' is that it is acting as a preposition and the prepositional phrase acts as an adjectival modifier modifying the noun "similarities" in front. As per grammar, a prepositional modifier can be either adjectival or adverbial.

An adjectival prepositional modifier in such cases duly answers the question 'which' and in D, which answers the question 'similarities'.

For further info, please refer to this link

<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/including>

(C) A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

Please guide if I am understanding this wrong. Option C is wrong because of ambiguity created due to "striking similarities". C is not wrong because of "that include" in the end.

Please help. Thanks is advance and kudos to follow

The ambiguity is due to the way that include has been positioned so far away from what it refers to (striking similarities).

C A recent United States study showed striking similarities in identical twins reared apart from each other that include many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

D According to a recent United States study, identical twins reared apart from each other showed striking similarities, including many idiosyncrasies of behavior.

The including is much closer to striking similarities in D than that include is to striking similarities in C.

Thanks for prompt reply. One query on your explanation that is we have seen some correct examples in gmat where pronouns refer to something which way back in the sentence. So is it in this case that it refers to something else also or just the distance between them is the issue.



Posted from my mobile device

That's a very good question, and it is one of the things that seem to call for different approaches in different questions. My recommendation is that we recognize that we shouldn't look at a that as being a great way to do something just because it can do something. Because we have to choose the best of the 5 options given to us, we should incorporate things like ambiguity as well.

Take a look at this post. It links to an official question in which a that makes exactly the kind of jump you mentioned. We need to be prepared for questions like that (although they aren't very common), but we should also recognize that in a lot of other questions, we'll have to remove an option for ambiguity.

is positioning of the "that include" the only reason this answer choice is incorrect? can you kindly share other examples where this would be incorrect please?

Possibly. It's acceptable to say things like "a study showed a connection between..." so even that is not really a split. It'd be good to get some more opinions on this though.

As for another example, maybe we could take a look at this question, though it's not an exact match.

The World Wildlife Fund has declared that global warming, a phenomenon most scientists agree that is caused by fossil fuels burned by human beings, will create havoc among migratory birds by altering the environment in ways harmful to their habitats.

AjiteshArun Thanks for examples. One more thing; Which one Can I take away from this discussion, or none.

1. "modifiers should be closest to the noun/noun phrase" they are modifying or
2. "they should always be preceded by noun/noun phrase and cannot be placed anywhere else if there intended meaning was to modify that noun/noun phrase".

I understand that there are some cases such as "Standing at the gate, John was stung by a scorpion". Here Standing is far away from John but still it makes sense.