Since taking control of the capital, the BBC reporter says security fo

The comma can come before "which" depending on whether you want to introduce a restrictive (essential information) or non-restrictive clause (non-essential information)

(1) Restrictive clause: The house which I lived in two years ago was made of bricks
(2) Non-restrictive clause: The house, which I lived in two years ago, was made of bricks

In (1), the emphasis is on that house where I lived two years ago. Thus, what comes after "which" is essential and there is no comma to separate it from the rest of the sentence
In (2), the emphasis is put on a house made of bricks, any house made of bricks. Thus, you can remove the portion which comes between the commas and the sentence makes sense.

Let's look at my sentence again.
In red is a parenthetical element which, if removed, does not affect the meaning of the sentence

The comma in this case comes after "which" here introduces a parenthetical element (non-essential information) but is not part of the clause which includes "which". Let's remove that parenthetical element and analyze the sentence again.

In red is a parenthetical element which does not affect the meaning of the sentence

The portion in red is now part of the restrictive clause introduced by "which" and this is essential information as there is no comma which comes before "which". Thus, my intention while writing that sentence was to put an emphasis on the restrictive clause which comes after "parenthetical element" and to describe to you what it really is.

On a final note, remember that while "which" can introduce either a restrictive or non-restrictive clause, "that" will NEVER introduce a non-restrictive clause but will ALWAYS introduce a restrictive clause. Therefore, you will NEVER have a comma preceding "that" in a sentence.

For example
(1) Non-restrictive clause: The house, that I lived in two years ago, was made of bricks --> wrong!
(2) Restrictive clause: The house that I lived in two years ago was made of bricks --> right

B is the only one that doesnt change the meaning and has not modifier issues.

• Since taking control of the capital, the BBC reporter says security forces have arrested ---- misplaced modifier


* The BBC reporter says that, since taking control of the capital, security forces have arrested --- correct choice without modification error or split verb; The prepositional modifier phrase introduced by the preposition since duly modifies its noun the security forces. The modified can not be the reporteer since we don’t logically expect a reporter to take control of a capital; his job is to report.

* The BBC reporter, since taking control of the capital, says security forces --- The reporter did not take control----- misplaced modification
* Security forces, since taking control of the capital, have, the BBC reporter says, arrested --- the intrusion and insertion of the phrase --the BBC reporter says—
between have and arrested is ugly in the least, if not distorting the meaning

* Security forces have arrested the BBC reporter since taking control of the capital --- total muddle of the meaning

Official Solution:

Since taking control of the capital, the BBC reporter says security forces have arrested about 40 insurgents of the majority political group, killing one of them.

A. Since taking control of the capital, the BBC reporter says security forces have arrested
B. The BBC reporter says that, since taking control of the capital, security forces have arrested
C. The BBC reporter, since taking control of the capital, says security forces
D. Security forces, since taking control of the capital, have, the BBC reporter says, arrested
E. Security forces have arrested the BBC reporter since taking control of the capital

This question requires clarification as to who took control of the capital. In the original sentence, it seems as if the BBC reporter took control; to fix the sentence, the acting party –security forces – must be clarified.

1. This option splits the acting party, security forces, from the action, taking control of the capital.
2. This option places the BBC reporter at the beginning of the sentence as the observing party and makes it clear that security forces have taken the capital.
3. This option resolves the ambiguity of the original sentence, but incorrectly credits the BBC reporter with taking control of the capital.
4. This option is unnecessarily wordy and even more confusing than the original.
5. Insurgents, not the BBC reporter, were arrested by security forces.

Answer: B

E --- Poor reporter LOL.

In fairness it could happen


All jokes aside the answer is B

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.