Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, th

'Including' modifies the noun before it.
So A, C and E are incorrect as it is modifying the nightshade family instead of 'the member of the nightshade family'

'Which includes' after the ',' correctly modifies the whole clause.

There is an awesome post on the mgmat forum related to this. Search for "The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters" in the forum. the question discussed is similar and the concepts involved are the same.

Guys, thanks for all your contributions. I've figured out.
The explanation in #49 in diagnostic test in OG 12th ed says it all:

49. As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

(A) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including
(B) Stella Adler, one of the most influential artists in the American theater, trained several generations of actors who include
(C) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several generations of actors whose ranks included
(D) one of the most influential artists in the American theater was Stella Adler, who trained several generations of actors including
(E) one of the most influential artists in the American theater, Stella Adler, trained several generations of actors whose ranks included
" Several generations of actors including" shows the same error
in reverse; "including" modifies the whole phrase, but the two actors named are not generations of actors. The more limiting clause whose ranks
included (referring to actors) is appropriate here.

so this means GMAC thinks that the phrase "including x" can modify the whole phrase preceding it.

This means that for any pattern like this "is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna." the "including belladonna" is modifying "a member of the generally toxic nightshade family" which doesn't make sense

The post offered by dreambeliever can testify to this rule:

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

A
B. as mere scavenging for meat, have emerged from examining tools found in Germany, which include
C. as mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that includes
D. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which includes
E. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including

OA is E, indicating that "including..." is modifying the whole phrase "tools found in Germany"

What should be the approach to tackle fully underlined SC questions within time frame?
Can anyone help on this?

Hi Mike

i seek your help in this question.I have multiple issues in the following question

a)"Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless" Conjungtion+participial phrase is always incorrect on gmat so why is the answer choice D correct.

b) I went on to select option E as the correct answer that says "A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was ". As per the modifier exception rule a small word such as an example can come in between a modifier and the noun it modes.So please help me know where i am getting worn. Is "including belladonna" acting as a participial modifier or just as an example.Also help me explain why option D is correct and why option E is incorrect

Dear AnmolKukreja
I'm happy to respond.

Remember that grammar is not mathematics, and you cannot master the GMAT SC section simply by memorizing a rule for every possible scenario. You have to READ. You only develop an ear for what sounds natural by reading sophisticated material in English. You are planning to go to business school, so arguably, you already should be reading the Wall Street Journal every day and the Economist magazine every week. Here are more suggestions:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-reading-list/
Examples in those sources will help to build your ear all the subtleties of grammar that can't be completely encapsulated in rules.

As for rule (a), I would say that the structure conjunction + participial phrase is one that should make us suspicious, but this certain can be correct and in fact is included in the OA of several official questions. The structure is certainly problematic if the implied actor of the participle is not entirely clear, but here, it is 100% clear.

Choice (D) is logically very clear, and the structure at the beginning presents no problem.

Choice (E) is awkward for a couple reasons. First of all, this is not any noun modifier. This is a very particular kind of noun modifier called an appositive phrase. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... e-phrases/
An appositive doesn't merely modify a noun --- it restates the noun, giving another way to say the same thing. In some sense, an appositive is a "more intimate" modifier because it ultimately is not existentially different from the noun. Thus, putting any interruption between an appositive phrase and the noun is modifies is somewhat more awkward and disruptive than putting the same interruption between an ordinary noun modifier and the noun. That's one thing that's awkward about (E).
Also, the phrasing "the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless" is ambiguous as regards who knew what: it almost implies that there were people who, at one time, said, "I know the tomato is harmless, but I going to consider it poisonous anyway."
Finally, and this is the biggest problem --- the failure of parallelism in the verbs:
the tomato was once considered ... and now eaten
The auxiliary verb "was" cannot apply to "eaten", because that would make it a past action, and the action of "eaten" is clearly present. We need the auxiliary verb "is" to accompany "eaten", and it's not there. This makes (E) unambiguously wrong.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi,

I have a short question about the parallelism of adjectives and participles. Don't they both fall into the same parallelism category? I'm asking, because in the explanation of a MGMAT QB-question they said that the following portions X and Y aren't parallel:

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family.

Is it correct, that the two portions aren't parallel or is it an error in the explanation?

Thank you very much in advance.

Best wishes
Lauch

Dear Lauch,
I'm happy to respond. My friend, as a general rule, please don't start a brand new thread for a question or a part of a question that has already been posted on GMAT. Here, I have merged your recent post into this much earlier post on this question. Theoretically, you may find discussion in this thread that would be illuminating for your questions.

Here's what I'll say about your specific question. This structure is not 100% right but it's not 100% wrong either. It would pass as acceptable in colloquial English, and in a way that's the problem: it's a bit too colloquial and casual sounding.

You see, a single participle by itself is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of single-word adjective. Parallelism would be perfectly fine in that case. This is subtle, though: when we tack on a predicate and turn the stand-alone participle into an entire participial phrase, it becomes somewhat "less" adjective-like. Of course, it's still a noun-modifier, playing the same role as would an adjective, but it starts to sound slightly off to have a long entire participial phrase in parallel with a single-word adjective. It's not black-and-white wrong, but it's a bit off.
Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, = not completely wrong, but off, not-ideal
Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, = so much better!! Well-spoken & natural sounding!
I don't know what the MGMAT folks said in the OE, but it may be that they stated in prescriptive form something that would be a very helpful guideline for GMAT SC. Putting a participial phrase in parallel with a single-word adjective is not out-and-out 100% wrong, but such a structure would be quite unlikely to appear as part of the correct answer on the GMAT SC. The bright folks at MGMAT were steering you away from it for your own GMAT SC good.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi I can understand the answer here, but the only doubt is to choose an answer choice which has "known to be". Until now I thought in GMAT only "Known as" is correct. Could you please explain a bit regarding the right usage between "known to be" and "known as".

Dear aparajita123,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, here are some free GMAT Idiom Flashcards that you may find helpful. Also, this is a blog you may find germane:
GMAT Idioms of Thinking and Knowing

In fact, there are a number of correct idioms with "know" and "known." The three big correct idioms with "known" found on the GMAT SC are
known as
known for
known to [verb]
The first two are very limited in context. The idiom "known as" indicates a person's identity, the means by which others would recognize the name.
Simon Bolivar, known as the liberator of much of South America, . . .
Vermeer, known as the painter of the Girl with a Pearl Earring, . . .
The idiom "known for" gives the reason why someone is famous. In this construction, the object of the preposition "for" is often a gerund.
Roald Amundsen, known for reaching South Pole first, . . .
Sylvester Stallone, known for his role as "Rocky," . . .

The last idiom is the most versatile, because it can take any verb. This one has the subtle connotation of communication something that is not the single most important fact, but a secondary detail. In particular, "known to be" usually conveys not the defining characteristic of someone or something, but rather another pertinent fact about that person or thing. We would say,
Barack Obama, known as the President of the US, . . .
Barack Obama, known to be a Cubs fan, . . .
The first is the principal reason why Obama is famous. The second is a detail, something true but not the most important fact to know about the man. Similarly,
James Garfield, known to read both Greek and Latin, . . .
Cameron Diaz, known to support veterans and their families, . . .
In both cases, we are given an interesting secondary fact about the person, not the single most important reason why they are famous.

In this sentence, it is 100% true that a tomato is harmless, but that's not the defining characteristic of what a tomato is in its essence. This is not what makes a tomato a tomato. Thus, the "known to be harmless" idioms is perfectly appropriate in this scenario.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

this is hard and not an official question. so, our discussion is to practice. we can not get a lession/takeaway from this lession.

including is a preposition not a form of "doing". see dictionary for this point. for get the fuction of "doing" in this problem.
the problem here is the meaning of "including" . I think the meaning of including is "among them". this meaning requires a plural noun before "including" . so, family go before including becom illogic.
which includes become logic and correct.

but honestly, i dont see any official question test this meaning of including. some question test the meaning of including in which including is correct and includes is incorrect . but they do not test that the meaning require plural noun before including.

Dear thangvietnam,
My friend, with all due respect, I disagree on a couple of points.

1) Admittedly, this is not an official question, but it's an MGMAT question, and those are among the best non-official questions available for practice. Also, FWIW, I would say that the MGMAT explanations of their own questions are considerably better than the OG's explanations of the official questions. The official GMAT questions are among the best on earth, but the official explanations leave a lot to be desired. Many private companies have better explanations.

2) The word "including" has a function similar to that of a preposition, but it is the present participle of the verb "to include." In this construction, "including" is perfectly clear and correct. The verb "include" can have a singular or plural subject, and in much the same way, the participle "including" can have a singular or plural referent. It's perfectly clear if the target noun is a singular category name ("...the rodent order, including ...", ". . . Marxism, including Leninism and Maoism, . . . ") See OG2016 SC #78 for an example of a sentence in which the verb "include" has a singular subject. I am not aware of an official question using "including," but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were one. This is a very good practice question, as the MGMAT questions typically are.

Mike

The problem with "including" in (A) is not a matter of idiom. It simply doesn't make sense. Consider the offending portion on its own:

The tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.

Before the modifier, it all makes sense. The tomato is a member of the nightshade family. But when we add "including belladonna," it could imply that the tomato is also part of belladonna! (I wouldn't use this form to say that as it's still very muddled, but that's the trouble it causes.) Using "which" clearly creates a non-essential modifier that merely adds information about the nightshade family without reflecting back on the tomato's classification.

Compare that to the official example provided by sleepysnowy:

The new image . . . has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears . . .

In this case, the three wooden spears clearly are among the tools that were examined, so it makes sense to add that modifier. However, since belladonna is not one of things the tomato is part of, "including" doesn't work in that context.

Dear PrijitDebnath,
I'm happy to respond.

Here's (A):
A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

I would say the phrase "including belladona" in this particular sentence is certainly far from ideal. I certainly see the argument that it could have multiple referents, and anything ambiguous on the GMAT is wrong. I would say a bigger problem in this choice is the funky parallelism: "eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless."

I will repeat that "including" can modify a singular noun if that noun is an abstract idea:
....psychology, including Freudian & Jungian models, ...
... religion, including Confucianism, ...
... democracy, including a constitutional republic design, ...

Mike

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.
Major problem is parallelism between eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless in A, B, C & E
SO D is answer

Apart from this C & E has meaning issue
C fails to show the contrast by removing though
D conveys the contrast the other way around even though it is harmless in place of Though now eaten
in A & B poisonous itself doesn't sound okay
Hence its D again


A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.
B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.
C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.
D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.
E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world.

A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.

B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.

C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.

D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.

E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world.

Was stuck between C and D, chose D

In D which is correctly referring to nightshade family

Hence, Answer is D

The original sentence contains a lot of clauses in a confusing order. We need to find an answer choice that rephrases the sentence in a clear and concise manner. Also, the phrase "though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless" contains two elements that are not parallel. Moreover, "including belladonna" is incorrect left dangling. It should be "which includes belladonna." Finally, "itself" could refer either to "tomato" or to "belladonna".

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The pronoun "it" is ambiguous as it could refer either to "the nightshade family" or "belladonna" or "tomato." Additionally, the phrase "though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless" contains two elements that are not parallel.

(C) The phrase "including belladonna" does not properly modify anything.

(D) CORRECT. The opening phrase contains the two parallel elements "eaten in large quantities . . ." and "known to be harmless." The phrase "which includes belladonna" correctly modifies the "nightshade family." Finally, the pronoun "it" unambiguously refers to the tomato.

(E) The phrase "including belladonna" does not properly modify anything.

Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.[/u]

Here we have conditional clauses.

(A) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, the tomato is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, and was once thought to be poisonous itself as a result.
use of though in first clause to differentiate second clause is not appropriately conveys the meaning.

(B) The tomato, though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless, is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna, and it was therefore once thought to be poisonous itself.
'though now eaten in large quantities around the world and harmless' is not acting as modifier of Tomato

(C) Once thought to be poisonous itself, the tomato is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world, and is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna.
itself is inappropriate. Also 1st and 2nd clause is not differentiating proper meaning.

(D) Though now eaten in large quantities around the world and known to be harmless, the tomato was once considered poisonous because it is a member of the generally toxic nightshade family, which includes belladonna.
differentiation is perfectly appears between 1st and 2nd clause.KEEP

(E) A member of the generally toxic nightshade family, including belladonna, the tomato was once considered poisonous even though it is harmless and now eaten in large quantities around the world.
D appears better