A spokesman for the organization says that Curt Gowdy, who was 86, die

Hey Konstantin1983

i dont think that usage of "had" is correct..."says" is in present tense..

Hope u agree

Hey Rohit8865!
Makes sense of course. But i think both options may be correct)

IMO A.

'says' is the present tense and 'had' indicates 2 actions in the past. The word 'recently' also suggests that the event occurred in the near present and thus, a simple past is ideal.

IMO Answer is A:

A. A spokesman for the organization says that Curt Gowdy, who was 86,
who correctly references to the closest noun - Curt Cody
Verb-ed modifier after the comma, correctly refers to and modifies to the closest noun which is Curt Gowdy, and hence correctly implies the meaning "who died from Luekemia?" - Curt Gowdy died

B. Curt Gowdy, a spokesman for the organization, who was 86,
Incorrectly refers Curt Gowdy to be the spkesperson who was 86 and has died, and changes the meaning of the intended sentence.
However, I was a bit confused by this option since grammatically it seems concise and correct, so if someone has a better clarification for this, please suggest.

C. A spokesman for the organization, who was 86, says that Curt Gowdy
Incorrectly refers to spokesperson as 86 years old, and "who was 86 year old", meaning changes to- the spokesman was 86 years old? Now he is not? Or has he ceased to exist after 86 years old? Makes no sense to me

D. A spokesman for the organization had said Curt Gowdy, who was 86,
use of had is incorrect I feel, "had" takes the first action which occurred (someone can share their opinion on this)

E. A spokesman for the organization says that Curt Gowdy, who was 86, had
Double past "had" not required as "says" is in present tense, and does not denote 2 actions which occurred in past

The meaning provided by the original sentence is not necessarily dispositive. But looking at the other meanings, you can see that some are illogical. Other versions make errors of grammar.


In E, the past perfect is not needed. The spokesman “says” is in the present tense: we are discussing a fact that is true in the present. Therefore, only the simple past is needed to say that Curt “died.” There does not exist several past actions that require sequencing. The use of the past perfect seems unnecessary.

In D, the past perfect is used to describe the action of the spokesperson, whereas the simple present “died” is used to describe Curt’s death.

The structure of the sentence suggests that the spokesperson had said Curt died BEFORE Curt even died. This is illogical.

In C, we have the Relative Clause “who was 86” describing the spokesperson. The meaning suggests that the spokesperson was 86, but now he is no longer 86. This comes across as illogical.

In B, from a general style and sentence structure point of view, you have 2 nonrestrictive modifiers following each other. This makes the sentence come across “clunky” and not as concise as answer A.

More importantly, because of its placement, the nonrestrictive modifier “who was 86” could modify the prior noun phrase “a spokesman for the organization.”

Therefore, the meaning suggests by the sentence is that Curt Gowdy IS a spokesperson for the organization and WAS 86. Since the main clause of the sentence states that Curt died recently, the fact that he is a spokesperson for the organization seems illogical.

(*note* This is one way to read the meaning. At the very least, the meaning is ambiguous and the sentence structure, with two non restrictive noun modifiers back to back, isn’t as good as answer A’s sentence structure)

Answer A comes across clearer and without the grammar errors that are present in the other versions.

“A spokesman for the organization says that Curt Gowdy, who was 86, died from leukemia recently…”

Because the 1st clause “a spokesman for the organization says” has the reporting verb in the present tense, what the spokesman says is presented as a fact that is currently true. The sentence discusses what the spokesperson says in the present, not at a past time.

Since the spokesperson did not make the statement in the past, we do not have a “sequence of tenses” or “verb back shifting” issue.

If the sentence had been “the spokesperson said” in the simple past tense, then the fact that Curt died in the past would have had to be represented by the past perfect.

“The spokesperson said that Curt Gowdy had died…”

As it is, A is the best answer.

Posted from my mobile device

Thank you this really helped me with more clarification.
Is it an absolute no-no then? In GMAT, that two non restrictive modifiers placed back to back are incorrect or not preferred?

No, I think there are very few absolute rules on the SC section. Maybe less preferred? I hate giving advice in terms of absolutes especially since I don’t have the “expert” tag.

When I first started, I truly believed the rules were black and white (I was ignorant). The further you get in your studying, the more you realize the goal really is to choose the absolute “best” answer out of the 5 in front of you.

The way I approach an SC question is as follows:

(1st) understand the original version as best I can - take note of any issues that pop out at me

(2nd) look for the more clear-cut violations of grammar: subject-verb agreement, lack of subject noun or finite verb, pronoun lacking a clear antecedent, etc.

(3rd) focus heavily on meaning with the remaining answer choices. Each phrase and/or word will make up “pieces” that fill “grammatical slots” within the sentence. In doing so, the phrase or word performs certain functions. The effect is that sometimes the meaning becomes either unclear or illogical.

In my opinion, these meaning issues are really the heart of what the SC section is testing: the ability to spot logical inconsistencies. I believe Grammar and Math are just vehicles used to test this skill.

Further, in my opinion, the 2nd issue in version B is the one I would focus on to confidently eliminate the answer choice.

(4th) finally, I’ll take account of “clunky” sentences, odd structure, or lack of concision. Also, before reaching this point, sentence structures such as “back to back non restrictive modifiers” appear as Red Flags that tell me, “stop for a second and take a closer look at this question.”

I hope it’s a bit helpful? The slight meaning differences contained in the upper level sentences become really difficult to parse.

My favorite explanation in the O.G. is still “the sentence is wordy.”

From Manhatten Prep:-

The original is correct. Here, the modifying phrase, who was 86, correctly modifies Curt Gowdy. Such Modifiers descibe the first available preceding noun. The Verbs convey a logical meaning; the one past event uses the simple past died. The use of was 86 is correct, since this state of being was concurrent with Gowdy's death.

(A) CORRECT.

(B) This choice has a modifier error that changes the original meaning. Curt Gowdy was not the spokesman but in this choice the modifying phrase a spokesman for the organization refers to him. Modifying phrases must be next to the noun that they modify.

(C) This choice also has a modification error that changes the original meaning. Here, the relative clause, who was 86, describes the spokesman instead of Curt Gowdy. Relative clauses refer to the noun immediately before them.

(D) This answer has a tense problem. Had said, the past perfect, is incorrect because this is not earlier past event. Logically, Gowdy had to die first. The past perfect tense is only used to indicate the earliest of multiple past time periods in a sentence. Thus, said and had died would be correct, if the sentence were rewritten in the past tense.

(E) This answer has a tense problem. Had died is incorrect use of the past perfect because it is the only past event in the sentence. The simple past, died, would be correct. The past perfect is only used to indicate the earliest of multiple past time periods.