Architects and stonemasons, huge palace and temple clusters were built

My take on option E -> I could not see any subject for verb "were", thus marking this error under the umbrella of Subject-Verb Agreement error I dropped this answer choice.

AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz GMATNinja

i was not confident while marking option C:Architects and stonemasons, the Maya built huge palace and temple clusters without since i was doubtful how can modifier 'Architects & stonemasons' refer to Maya ?.I realized my concept was not clear & thus following is my concern.

1 a)are Architects and stonemasons two different entity & is Maya both of them?. b)if yes then shouldn't Maya be plural as in Mayas

"The Maya" is plural. It is the name of the Native American civilization (and people) in question. These plural people were plural architects and stonemasons. Not every word in English takes an "s" ending when pluralized.

Pls explain, How is this sentence incorrect?

I understood the meaning of the sentence that
Mayan population built temples and palaces without...wheel.

What is the relevance of the modifier "Architects and Stonemasons" before the comma? What does it modify?

Hi Stormcool,

This is what E leads to:
Architects and stonemasons, were the Maya who...

The verb is were, and we expect a subject for that verb. One way to take E out is to focus on the comma between architects and stonemasons and were. This is like "X, were Y". If X is the subject of were, then there should not be a comma there. If X is a modifier, then there is no subject at all.

Pls, explain why 'E' is wrong other than the fact that 'Architects...' should be immediately followed by a suitable noun/pronoun.

Thanks

I cannot wrap my head around this:

(1) Scientists and engineers, the Russians built a huge rocket.
How is this not a fragmented sentence?

(2) Scientists and engineers, were the Russians who, ... , built a huge rocket.
Though the , is clearly wrong here, I've seen GMAT use commas to mark pauses arbitrarily.
If that's the case, would this option be more valid?

Hi shyam30, I can understand the confusion. Scientists and engineers are actually nouns; however, in this sentence, they are in some sense describing who the Russians are/were. So, the phrase Scientists and engineers is used as a modifier here, modifying the Russians.

Hence, it is not a fragmented sentence.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Fragmented sentences, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Hi DmitryFarber GMATNinja Abhi077 generis

It seems like in E -- were the Maya who is not a modifier according to E

If that is indeed the case, why is were the Maya who in between comma's in E?

Also, where can i read more about this part quoted by DmitryFarber - The part in question begins with a verb, so it's not a modifier. - i thought as long as anything is in between two comma's -- we can assume it's a modifier

Hi jabhatta2,

Unfortunately, we can't do that. You could try this question and this question and then go through these posts: 1 and 2.

Abhi077

Wouldn't "without the benefit..." be a prepositional phrase describing 'temple clusters and palaces' and therefore illogical or at the very least ambiguous if you said it could refer to architects and stonemansons?

(C) the Maya built huge palace and temple clusters without the benefit of animal transport or the wheel

sislam04
Prepositional phrases can be noun modifiers or adverbial modifiers, depending on the phrase and the context. In this case, "without the benefit" describes how something was done, so it's adverbial and modifies the verb "built."

Thank you for the response.

My counterpoint would be below:

We saw a tiger on they way to the store.

Did we see a tiger while we were going to the store or did we see a tiger on his way to the store?

Obliviously the later is a bit nonsensical but it does leave ambiguity (I think you would argue it's adverbial in this case). Similarly from the question above can't
the same be said that its ambiguous?

Hi GMATNinja

It would be really helpful if you could post a detailed solution to this question.
Also, what is the role of 'architects and stonemasons'

[quote="jitendra"]Architects and stonemasons, huge palace and temple clusters were built by the Maya without benefit of the wheel or animal transport.


(A) huge palace and temple clusters were built by the Maya without benefit of the wheel or animal transport

(B) without the benefits of animal transport or the wheel, huge palace and temple clusters were built by the Maya

(C) the Maya built huge palace and temple clusters without the benefit of animal transport or the wheel

(D) there were built, without the benefit of the wheel or animal transport, huge palace and temple clusters by the Maya

(E) were the Maya who, without the benefit of the wheel or animal transport, built huge palace and temple clusters


GMATNinja

I have come across two official problems that treat the descriptor of a noun at the beginning of the sentence being offset by a comma or no comma differently.
In this problem, there is a comma --> "Architects and stonemasons, the Maya".

In number 868 in the Official Guide 2020 version, there is no comma--> "Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk produced..."

How should I go about this?

Thank you I trust your words of wisdom.

sislam04
We want to avoid ambiguity, but it has to be real ambiguity to be a problem. In other words, a reader who is trying to understand the meaning would have to be genuinely unsure. In your tiger example, we don't have ambiguity, because tigers don't go to the store. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to refer to clusters of buildings "without the benefit of animal transport." We don't expect our buildings to be carried around on animals, and if they were, I'm not sure that would be a benefit!

Now, if we said "We saw a tiger on the way to the river," that might be unclear, although it could still be fine if it's not important to establish that the tiger was going to the river and we were not.