A 2009 study from the California State Housing Authority concluded

Dear pjaseem: I'm happy to help.
Dear dheeraj24: I'm happy to respond to your private message.

First, I will say: usually Veritas practice SC questions are very good, but I am not really fond of this one. This one seems far too detail-oriented, picayune, in a way that the GMAT SC is not. For example, choices (A) - (C) have semicolons, and choices (D) - (E) have full colons: among other things, the sentence seems to be testing punctuation directly. This is something the real GMAT never does.

The differences between the five answer choices are minute, compared to the size of the underlined section. Also, not very GMAT-like.

The problem with (B) is: the Parallelism is an absolute disaster. These options would be correct:
that are relatively small and old and located in central cities (three modifiers in parallel: P and Q and R)
that are relatively small, old, and located in central cities (three modifiers in parallel: P, Q, and R)
that are relatively small and old, and that are located in central cities (two parallel "that" clauses)
Now, look at (B):
that are relatively small, old, and that are located in central cities = a disaster
What are we trying to put in in parallel? If we want to put the two "that" clauses in parallel, then the adjectives in the first clause need a conjunction between them. It would be correct simply to have a comma between "small" and "old" if we were constructing the P, Q, and R parallel structure above, but individual adjectives cannot be in parallel to a "that" clause!! There is absolutely no sensible way to interpret this structure as a legitimate form of parallelism. It is a complete failure of parallelism, arguably the "most wrong" of the five answer choices.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Modifiers + Grammatical Construction + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• If a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by a conjunction; the "comma + and construction" (oxford comma) is used for the last element in a list of three or more elements.
• “that” is used to provide information needed to preserve the core meaning of the sentence, and the “comma + which” construction is used to provide extra information.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join two elements in a list - the adjective phrases "relatively small and old" and "located in central cities"; remember, if a list has only two elements, they must be joined with a conjunction.

B: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join two elements in a list - the adjectives "small" and "old"; remember, if a list has only two elements, they must be joined with a conjunction. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the "comma + and" construction (oxford comma) to join two elements in a list - the phrases "that are relatively small, old" and "that are located in central cities"; remember, if a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by conjunction; the "comma + and construction" (oxford comma) is used for the last element in a list of three or more elements. Additionally, Option B uses the needlessly wordy construction "that are located in central cities", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the "comma + and" construction (oxford comma) to join two elements in a list - the adjective phrases "relatively small and old" and "located in central cities"; remember, if a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by conjunction; the "comma + and construction" (oxford comma) is used for the last element in a list of three or more elements. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the "comma + which" construction to refer to information that is needed to preserve the core meaning of the sentence; remember, “that” is used to provide information needed to preserve the core meaning of the sentence, and the “comma + which” construction is used to provide extra information.

D: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses conjunction ("and" in this case) to join two elements in a list - the adjective "small and old". Further, Option D correctly uses conjunction ("and" in this case) to join two other elements in a list - the adjective phrases "relatively small and old" and "located in central cities". Additionally, Option D correctly uses "that" to refer to information that is needed to preserve the core meaning of the sentence. Besides, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

E: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the "comma + and" construction (oxford comma) to join two elements in a list - the adjective phrases "relatively small and old" and "located in central cities"; remember, if a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by conjunction; the "comma + and construction" (oxford comma) is used for the last element in a list of three or more elements.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

Additional Note: Please note that both a semicolon and colon can be used to join the two independent clauses here since the second clause explains the first; remember, colons are used to join two independent clauses when the second explains or illustrates the first.

To understand the use of punctuations on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~10 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Which" vs "That" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Dear ronr34,
I'm happy to respond.

1) The GMAT SC absolutely does not test punctuation. It does not write questions in which the split between two answers hinges on a punctuation difference.

2) With all due respect, your question contains a grammar error --- a usage error:
I don't see where the difference really lays.
This should be
I don't see where the difference really lies.
This is something the GMAT definitely tests. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-sente ... ie-vs-lay/

Now, it's beyond the what the GMAT will test, but I am happy to answer your question. A colon and a semicolon are NOT interchangeable. They have very different uses.

Roughly, the semicolon is a "soft break," as opposed the "hard break" of a, say, a period. The colon is a connector --- the logic of the sentence "flows through" a colon, but comes to a brief stop at a semicolon.

I like opera; Kevin doesn't. --- two independent clauses, with separate meanings; the semicolon, in providing a "soft break," actually enhances the contrast.

Kevin doesn't like opera: he says he finds it boring. --- now, the second clause explains the first; there is more logical connection, and the logic 'flows through" and interconnects the clauses.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi pqhai,
Thanks for explaining the options in detail.
I have a quick question here
Isn't colon(:) & semi-colon(;) also plays an imp role in making the 2/3 split ?
IMO here colon is preferred, as the second clause is basically a continuation of first or in a way dependent on the first.
Regards.

You're correct buddy.

Semicolon uses between two sentences. The second sentence provides more information for the first. However, two sentences MUST be two complete sentences. It means they are able to stand alone. Clearly, that's not the case here (part after ";" is not a complete sentence in terms of meaning, it CAN'T stand alone). Thus, ":" is correct.

This solution is from Veritas, but I cannot feel satisfied with its explanation. The use of commas should be discussed more carefully.

Solution: D

Explanation: The most obvious decision point in this problem is the choice of between a semi-colon and a colon. Interestingly, you could have either here: A semi-colon is used to link together related independent clauses and a colon is used to deliver more information about the clause that precedes it. This meets both conditions, but the colon use is more unusual for most students. (A), (B), (C), all suffer from errors in the series at the end of the sentence. In (A), “that are relatively small and old, located in central cities” is wrong because the “located in central cities” is a dangling modifier that cannot be properly linked to anything. In (B), you cannot have the structure: that are x, y, and that are z. In (C) the incorrect “which” clause would mean that all townhouses and “attached” homes are small and old and the “and located in central cities” is not linked to anything logical in the sentence. (D) is correct: the sentence after the colon is complete so it is capitalized and adds information to what precedes it. It is clear in (D) that the homes have two qualities: they are “relatively small and old” and “located in central cities.” In (E), the “and located in central cities” is improperly separated from a series that begins with “that”. Answer is (D).

mikemcgarry

It is mentioned in the OE that


But I feel the second sentence is not independent and we cannot go for semi-colon.
It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes, which are relatively small and old, and located in central cities..

What does pronoun it refer to? Study or Authority or conversion or difficulty in conversion?
Which/that are relatively small, old, and that are located in central cities phrase is referring to some townhouses or other “attached” homes or both?
Please explain?

Dear Nevernevergiveup,

I'm happy to respond! First of all, as I mentioned above, Veritas questions are often good, but I am not a fan of this one.

Colon and semicolon use is indeed quite subtle, and not really something the GMAT tests directly. It's true that, with a semicolon, we need an independent clause on each side. A colon can have an independent clause on each side, but it doesn't have to. When there's a colon separation between clauses, often the second clause is an explanation of the first clause---it provides a deeper "why" reason for the first statement. For example:
Nobody likes him: he is loud and obnoxious.
The second statement provides a reason and gives us insight as to why the first statement is true.

Here's the OE version of the sentence, (D):
A 2009 study from the California State Housing Authority concluded that conversion from ownership to rental properties has often been difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old and located in central cities.

The antecedent of "it" is "conversion," the subject of the "that" clause. This is a relatively natural antecedent-pronoun relationship, because in some sense "conversion" is the topic of the entire sentence.

The part of the sentence after the colon is a complete independent clause:
subject = "it"
verb = "has been"
Whether the noun modifier is a "that" clause or a "which" clause doesn't affect whether this entire part after the colon is independent. The fact that the antecedent of the pronoun is located somewhere else doesn't prevent this from qualifying as a full independent clause.

Notice that the statement after the colon gives an explanation: the first part says that the conversion is "difficult" and the second part gives some details about why it is difficult.

The "that" clause refers to "homes," the noun is touches. This follows the Modifier Touch Rule. This is a vital noun modifier, so we use "that" and don't separate it from the noun by a comma.

Overall, the OE is a perfectly correct sentence. I have no argument with that. My criticism is that the distractors are way too close and differ by only minute details. This is not at all in the style of the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Of course the modifier "located in central cities" applies to both A and B. However note the structure in A:

it is common for A and B {modifier 1: relative clause modifier "that are..."}, {modifier 2: past participle phrase modifier "located..."}.

It is often awkward to have two modifiers one after the other in series referring to something before or after them.

It is better to join those two aspects into one modifier as done in option D.

it is common for A and B {relative clause modifier "that are ...and located..."}.

There could be two possibilities:

Both A (townhouses) and B ("attached" homes) have the following characteristics:
1. relatively small and old
2. located in located in central cities.

OR

A (townhouses) has no modifier (i.e. no characteristics have been stated about townhouses ) and ONLY B ("attached" homes) has those 2 characteristics.

However, even if we suppose that A has only the 2nd characteristic and B has both, the original sentence would be wrong, since in that case B would be followed by 2 modifiers in series, a structure generally considered awkward in GMAT.

Dear suramya26,

I'm happy to respond.

As a general rule, if a question is of low quality, it doesn't make sense to continue to dig into it. You are usually much better served by focusing on high quality questions.

I will say that when three things are listed in parallel, the most standard options are "A and B and C" or "A, B, and C." One of those structures would be used if A, B, and C are all of equivalent logical stature, for example, if the were three items of the same general category. If we had three colors, or three cities, or three animals, then one of these structures would be appropriate.

Nevertheless, those two are not appropriate in a "one size fits all" way. If A and B are of one logical category, and C is of a completely different logical category, it would be appropriate to set off C from A & B. We might use "A and B, and C" for example.

In (E), we have: "... that are relatively small and old, and located in central cities."

We could make the argument that "small and old" describe the physical appearance of the houses, whereas "located in central cities" describes something very different, location as opposed to appearance. If we wanted to emphasize this logical distinction, we could use this structure.

My friend, remember that logic always trumps grammar. Students naively think of the GMAT SC as a test of grammar. It's not. Logic and meaning are far more important, and the grammar simply serves the logic and meaning.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

A 2009 study from the California State Housing Authority concluded that conversion from ownership to rental properties has often been difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old, located in central cities.

(A) difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old, located in central cities.
It's not clear as to what is the modifier "located in central cities" modifying or if it's part of the list of houses and homes.
(B) difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small, old, and that are located in central cities.
"that are" is repeated in the list and is incorrect.
(C) difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes, which are relatively small and old, and located in central cities.
Comma + Conjunction needs to be followed by a Clause( Subject + Verb), but it's followed by a Prepositional Phrase.
(D) difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old and located in central cities.
Correct. "small and old" is one list and "small and old(one element) and located in central cities" is one list.
(E) difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old, and located in central cities.
Comma + Conjunction needs to be followed by a Clause( Subject + Verb), but it's followed by a Prepositional Phrase.

Hi egmat mikemcgarry,

Can anyone help me understand why is "which" wrong in option C? As posted above, Veritas prep solution says " In (C) the incorrect “which” clause would mean that all townhouses and “attached” homes are small and old". I don't quite understand this.

Also, I spent a lot of time figuring out what does that and which refer to? Do they refer to both townhomes and "attached homes" or just the "attached homes"? Pleas ehelp understand the concept behind these.

Dear shonikjk,

I'm happy to respond.

Here's the OA version, (D):
A 2009 study from the California State Housing Authority concluded that conversion from ownership to rental properties has often been difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old and located in central cities.

First of all, remember that the GMAT SC is NOT simply a test a grammar. The GMAT SC tests grammar, logic, and rhetoric all at once, and it punishes students who pay attention only to grammar.

An important point of logic--whenever a sentence is talking about "A and other B," explicitly calling A a kind of B, then the author has created a strong logical link between A and B. Unless there is another structure that that creates contrast between A & B elsewhere in the sentence, we have to assume that the other intends to treat them as a single unit. Here, it's unambiguous that the author intends to discuss "townhouses and other “attached” homes" as a single category.

Notice, also, the correct term in English is "townhouses." The term "townhomes" makes no sense to native ears. The term "house" connotes anything about the physical building, where as "home" has all the connotation of family, connection, and belonging.

In (C), it's not so much that the "which" itself is wrong. Instead, it's the choppy nature of the modifier. There are three qualities of these houses that are being enumerated: (1) small, (2) old, (3) located in central cities. It makes the most logical sense to put these three in parallel, as they are in the OA, (D). Choice (C) puts two in parallel inside the "which" clause and the third sticks out like a sore thumb. Very awkward.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Official explanation:

Solution: D

Explanation: The most obvious decision point in this problem is the choice of between a semi-colon and a colon. Interestingly, you could have either here: A semi-colon is used to link together related independent clauses and a colon is used to deliver more information about the clause that precedes it. This meets both conditions, but the colon use is more unusual for most students. (A), (B), (C), all suffer from errors in the series at the end of the sentence.
In (A), “that are relatively small and old, located in central cities” is wrong because the “located in central cities” is a dangling modifier that cannot be properly linked to anything.
In (B), you cannot have the structure: that are x, y, and that are z.
In (C) the incorrect “which” clause would mean that all townhouses and “attached” homes are small and old and the “and located in central cities” is not linked to anything logical in the sentence.
(D) is correct: the sentence after the colon is complete so it is capitalized and adds information to what precedes it. It is clear in (D) that the homes have two qualities: they are “relatively small and old” and “located in central cities.”
In (E), the “and located in central cities” is improperly separated from a series that begins with “that”.

Answer is (D).

A 2009 study from the California State Housing Authority concluded that conversion from ownership to rental properties has often been difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old, located in central cities.

(A) difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old, located in central cities. -> small and old is okay, but to establish parallelism, we need "and located". Incorrect.

(B) difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small, old, and that are located in central cities. -> Small and old are list items, we need "and" in between. "that are relatively" and "that are located..." is a trap.

(C) difficult; it has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes, which are relatively small and old, and located in central cities. -> which is modifying " “attached” homes" It is incorrect.

(D) difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old and located in central cities. -> small and old and located.. here we have one set of list items and another set. It makes sense.

(E) difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old, and located in central cities. -> comma +conjunction is forcing to think as a clause to follow (Subject and Verb). It is not the case. So, It is incorrect.

So, I think D.

Hi,

I'm new to posting, so apologies for any formatting mishaps/errors.

mikemcgarry I've been following your posts for awhile now, and I'd appreciate a brief clarification regarding choice D.

I felt confident with regards to the punctuation being tested, but I was more unclear regarding the parallelism:

(D) difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old and (that are?) located in central cities.

Shouldn't we have an additional "that are" before "located in central cities"?

Thanks!