Okay, I see a lot of people asking about this one, so I will stick out my neck in hopes of providing a useful analysis for the community to digest. First things first: am I 100 percent comfortable with the correct answer? No. Did I answer the question correctly? Yes. It took 1:34, which exceeds my typical timing for an SC question. This sort of situation can be useful in your preparation to solidify lessons you have learned. I will aim to touch on all the issues that people have posted on thus far.
vinny12 wrote:
Anthropologists have recently discovered DNA evidence that indicates that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than has previously been believed and were influencing Chinese artistic traditions.
A. that indicates that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than has previously been believed and were influencing
Analysis: I like the
that clause marker here. What I am less keen on is the lack of parallelism between the verbs within the clause: Europeans
had contact and
were influencing. I would expect something more along the lines of
Europeans had contact... and influenced. Grounds for dismissal? Not yet, but I would call that strike one. Strike two is the comparative
than has previously been believed. What does the present perfect convey that the more concise
than was previously believed in other choices does not? Just as I did during my scouring of the answers, I would keep this one on hold. Two strikes do not a strikeout make.
Yellow light.vinny12 wrote:
B. that had indicated that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than was previously believed and were influencing
Analysis: It is hard to get beyond the past perfect
had indicated. How could recently discovered evidence reach further back into the past than its discovery? Have the anthropologists rediscovered it? If so, who found it first, and why is that individual or group not mentioned? Apart from this clear problem, we have not addressed the
had contact... were influencing of choice (A). Again, this latter concern is a minor consideration. The former one, however, is as major as can be. Despite fixing the comparison toward the end of the underlined portion, this answer choice is easy to get rid of.
Red light.vinny12 wrote:
C. to indicate that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than was previously believed and that they influenced
Analysis: Now for the real issue, the infinitive
to indicate versus the earlier
that indicates. I still prefer
that, but why can we not immediately cast this infinitive aside? Sometimes an infinitive can be used in place of a relative clause. It is kind of a murky area in English grammar if temporal concerns or counting are not in the picture. Each of the following sentences, for instance, is grammatically fine:
1) I have a lot of work to do.
2) I have a lot of work that I need to do.
I know the two model sentences do not follow the exact construct of the sentence at hand, but I would like to point out that sentence 1) could just as easily add a relative clause to the end, similar to what we see in the sentence in question:
I have a lot of work to do that I hope to complete by noon. For anyone arguing that the infinitive in
evidence to indicate that Europeans... presents a certain causality, namely that the anthropologists discovered evidence
in order to indicate something, I would argue that the process of discovery precludes intent. That is, you can intend to find something to prove or disprove a point, but you cannot discover something previously unknown in order to prove or disprove a point. You might not find anything, and a discovery is a serendipitous act. I may be reading too much into the meaning of
discovered, but if I am wrong, then I cannot argue against the dual interpretation of
to indicate. With that said, someone else brought up a concern about the ambiguity of
they in
that they influenced. Does it refer back to anthropologists or Europeans? For this one, we can turn to the grammar to prove that
they must refer back to
Europeans. All you have to do is follow what is going on after the infinitive and strip the line down to its basics:
to indicate
that Europeans had contact... and
that they influenced...
And is acting in the capacity of joining two items, as in,
A and B, not joining two independent clauses. Without the second
that, the line could be interpreted as saying that anthropologists influenced Chinese artistic traditions, but even then, we would need a comma before the conjunction
and. As written, we have two perfectly parallel items in a list:
that A and that B. In this restrictive context,
they can logically refer only to
Europeans. While we are on the topic of parallelism, this option fixes the earlier peccadillo in
had contact... were influencing, replacing it with
had contact... and influenced. Altogether, I cannot definitively rule out this one. It may not be perfect, but in tougher questions especially, sometimes it is better to hang on if you are unsure and come back to it later, once you have burned off anything else you can in the first pass.
Yellow light.vinny12 wrote:
D. to indicate that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than has previously been believed and they influenced
Analysis: Phew! This one is relatively straightforward after that nightmare of a choice in (C). The switch has flipped back to the perfect tense--
has previously been believed--but beyond that, we have a grammatically incorrect
and they influenced, with no comma to indicate the second independent clause. Furthermore, as discussed above, even with correct punctuation,
they would be ambiguous. Was it the Europeans or the anthropologists who influenced Chinese artistic traditions? The tail-end of this answer choice is a clear warning sign.
Red light.vinny12 wrote:
E. indicating that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than was previously believed, influencing
Analysis: Still another user had a question about this choice. Although I prefer
that at the head of the underlined portion, I tolerated
to indicate in choices (C) and (D), so I did not dismiss this standout right away because of its -ing construct. The problem for me lies with
influencing. An -ing phrase can be used to modify just about anything in the previous phrase or clause, and once again, if we strip the sentence down to read for meaning, we get the following:
Anthropologists have discovered evidence indicating [something], influencing traditions.
It sure sounds as if the anthropologists are meddling with traditions, and adding the Europeans back to the mix only masks the lack of clarity:
Anthropologists have discovered evidence indicating that Europeans may have had contact, influencing traditions.
People talk this way all the time. I would probably say the above sentence and not think twice about it. However, your ear can deceive you on a written test of grammar, one that demands clarity of meaning, and this answer choice stands in clear violation of that goal.
Red light.Okay, so now that we have whittled the answers down to two options, we should consider them side by side. Focus on the differences:
vinny12 wrote:
A. that indicates that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than has previously been believed and were influencing
C. to indicate that Europeans may have had contact with ancient China far earlier than was previously believed and that they influenced
Boiled down, we have
A. that indicates... has previously been believed and
were influencing
C. to indicate... was previously believed and
that they influencedThe only part I like better about (A) is
that indicates. For reasons explained above, the present perfect is a worse way of expressing the second notion, and
were influencing fails to draw a proper parallel between the two actions
had and
influenced. Since I cannot
disprove choice (C) and prefer it in two of three splits, I cast my vote for the harder-to-argue-against answer in (C). I like to say that in a 50/50 situation,
never settle on something you know is off-base. It is better to go with what you are uncertain of and maybe get the question right.
If anyone has further questions, do not hesitate to ask. As always, good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
close
Updated on: 08 Jan 2020, 00:25
62%
(01:47)
wrong 
