TommyWallach
In (E), why can't "As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting" modify Stella Adler? We can have multiple modifiers in series. I am sure that (C) is the better option, but please tell me whether (E) is a less preferred option or out rightly incorrect?

Hello adityaganjoo,

Here is my response to your question.


Choice E is straight-away incorrect. The reason is that the sentence starts with two modifiers "as an actress" and "as a teacher of acting". These modifiers talk about a personality who was an actress and teacher of acting. Therefore, it is mandatory that that personality = Stella Adler be the subject of the sentence.

But that is not the case in Choice E. The subject in this choice is another description of the same personality - "one of the most influential artists in the American theater". "Stella Adler" simply appears as a modifier for this subject. This structure of the sentence is not grammatical.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

GMATNinja

Hi Charles, I personally decided to cross out answer choice B because I felt like the subject is awkwardly sandwiched between two modifiers "as an actress..." and "one of the most influential..". I also felt like the main verb "trained" was too far from the subject. Is this a valid reason to eliminate this or are the concerns I've mentioned nonissues?

The first issue is that the phrase beginning with "who" is right next to "the American theater", and that doesn't really make sense. "The American theater" isn't a person, and it didn't train generations of actors. Sure, you could maybe argue that "who trained several generations of actors..." reaches back to modify the entire phrase "one of the most influential artists in the American theater", but that's far messier than just modifying "Stella Adler", who is actually the one who trained the actors. We can argue about whether this is definitively WRONG, but at the very least, we can do better than this.

The second issue is that "including" seems to modify "several generations of actors", and that doesn't really make sense: Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro are examples of actors, not "generations of actors." It's subtle -- and probably not the worst error we've ever seen on a GMAT SC question -- but it makes (A) worse than at least one of the alternatives below.

So we can get rid of (A).


There's still a minor problem with the very last part of the underlined portion: "several generations of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro" sounds OK, because those two fellows are examples of actors, but then why are we saying "generations of actors"? Brando and De Niro are examples of actors, not "generations of actors." And there's another problem: "include" is present tense, and it's hard to justify the use of present tense here when the other action related to the actors occurred in the past tense ("trained").

And if you aren't completely sold by that last paragraph, there's something else at the beginning of the sentence: "as an actress... Stella Adler... trained several generations of actors." No, she only "trained generations of actors" as a "teacher of acting" -- not "as an actress." Subtle and nasty. But (B) is out.


That opening modifier makes sense now: "as an actress and... as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists..." Cool, that's great. The modifier "training several generations of actors..." also makes sense: it modifies the previous clause, telling us more about Stella Adler and her life as "one of the most influential artists in the American theater.

Superficially, that last part of the underlined portion looks wordy: "several generations of actors whose ranks included..." But adding the phrase "whose ranks included" actually makes the phrase clearer than in (A) or (B): Brando and De Niro were among the ranks of those generations of actors. Fair enough.

So we can keep (C).


The underlined portion is preceded by "as an actress and... as a teacher of acting", a phrase that really needs to modify "Stella Adler." It's ridiculously indirect for that phrase to modify "one of the most influential artists in the American theater." So (D) is much less clear than (C) in that part of the sentence.

Plus, we have the same minor issue with the phrase "generations of actors including..." as we did in (A). See above for more on that issue.

So (D) is gone.


(E) has the same problem as (D): the beginning of the sentence needs to modify "Stella Adler." More broadly, "Stella Adler" really needs to be the subject of the sentence, since she's the one that trained the generations of actors -- and it's an indirect mess to use "one of the most influential artists..." as the subject of the sentence.

So (E) is out, and (C) is the best option.

GMATNinja, @ExpertGlobal5,

Hi,

I was struggling between (B) and (C). I see where (B) goes wrong, but I found 'included' in (C) to be misleading, too. The actors she trained still include Roberto De Niro and Marlon, so why do we use included?

Thanks

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater because she trained several generations of actors whose ranks included Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

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

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro“; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro were individually a generation of actors that Stella Adler trained; the intended meaning is that Stella Adler trained many generations of actors, and these generations included Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

B: This answer choice incorrectly places information that is important to the core meaning of the sentence – the fact that Stella Adler was “one of the most influential artists in the American theater“ – between two commas; please remember, information needed to maintain the core meaning of the sentence must not be placed between two commas.

C: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrases “whose ranks included”, conveying the intended meaning – that Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater because she trained several generations of actors whose ranks included Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Further, Option C avoids the grammatical construction error seen in Options B and E, as it places no information between commas. Additionally, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro“; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro were individually a generation of actors that Stella Adler trained; the intended meaning is that Stella Adler trained many generations of actors, and these generations included Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Further, Option D uses the passive voice construction “one of the most influential artists in the American theater was Stella Adler,”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: This answer choice incorrectly places information that is important to the core meaning of the sentence – the fact that Stella Adler was “one of the most influential artists in the American theater“ – between two commas; please remember, information needed to maintain the core meaning of the sentence must not be placed between two commas.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Extra Information Between Commas" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

ExpertsGlobal5 hello expert, i went with E cuz I was confused with the core meaning. I thought the core meaning should be ”Stella Adler trained several generations of actors”, so would you like to explain how to recognize the core meaning? Thanks in advance.

Mavisdu1017

I can't agree that the "intended meaning" can't show up in a modifier. That is definitely not true. However, we do need the sentence to convey a clear and sensible meaning, and E doesn't quite do that. The modifier move here is definitely one way to see that. The initial modifier should clearly modify the action that follows. Stella did something "As an actress and as a teacher." What did she do? She was an influential artist. She was influential in both these parts of her life. If we choose E, we're saying that "As an actress AND as a teacher," she trained actors. But both those roles don't apply to "she trained actors." She did that as a TEACHER, but not as an actress. In that sense, E doesn't convey the meaning we see in the others, or any useful meaning at all. The opening modifier must always play nicely with what follows!

Hey All,

The most important rule to remember for modifiers is that noun modifiers need to touch the thing they're modifying.

a.Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including
PROBLEM: The first modifier is correct ("As an actress..." is touching "Stella Adler"). Unfortunately, the second modifier is incorrect. "Who trained several..." should be touching Stella Adler as well. Instead it's modifying "American theater", which doesn't make any sense.

can anyone please explain why in this example placement of WHO away from the object it relates to, is NOT a mistake. it seems very similar:
"the proportion of judges and partners at major law firms who are women has not risen comparably" is correct, according to GMAT.
What's the difference?
https://gmatclub.com/forum/despite-the- ... l#p2999123

can anyone please explain why in this example placement of WHO away from the object it relates to, is NOT a mistake. it seems very similar:
"the proportion of judges and partners at major law firms who are women has not risen comparably" is correct, according to GMAT.
What's the difference?
https://gmatclub.com/forum/despite-the- ... l#p2999123

the proportion of judges and partners at major law firms who are women has not risen comparably

Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including

The first issue is that the phrase beginning with "who" is right next to "the American theater", and that doesn't really make sense. "The American theater" isn't a person, and it didn't train generations of actors. Sure, you could maybe argue that "who trained several generations of actors..." reaches back to modify the entire phrase "one of the most influential artists in the American theater", but that's far messier than just modifying "Stella Adler", who is actually the one who trained the actors. We can argue about whether this is definitively WRONG, but at the very least, we can do better than this.

The second issue is that "including" seems to modify "several generations of actors", and that doesn't really make sense: Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro are examples of actors, not "generations of actors." It's subtle -- and probably not the worst error we've ever seen on a GMAT SC question -- but it makes (A) worse than at least one of the alternatives below.

So we can get rid of (A).


There's still a minor problem with the very last part of the underlined portion: "several generations of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro" sounds OK, because those two fellows are examples of actors, but then why are we saying "generations of actors"? Brando and De Niro are examples of actors, not "generations of actors." And there's another problem: "include" is present tense, and it's hard to justify the use of present tense here when the other action related to the actors occurred in the past tense ("trained").

And if you aren't completely sold by that last paragraph, there's something else at the beginning of the sentence: "as an actress... Stella Adler... trained several generations of actors." No, she only "trained generations of actors" as a "teacher of acting" -- not "as an actress." Subtle and nasty. But (B) is out.


That opening modifier makes sense now: "as an actress and... as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists..." Cool, that's great. The modifier "training several generations of actors..." also makes sense: it modifies the previous clause, telling us more about Stella Adler and her life as "one of the most influential artists in the American theater.

Superficially, that last part of the underlined portion looks wordy: "several generations of actors whose ranks included..." But adding the phrase "whose ranks included" actually makes the phrase clearer than in (A) or (B): Brando and De Niro were among the ranks of those generations of actors. Fair enough.

So we can keep (C).


The underlined portion is preceded by "as an actress and... as a teacher of acting", a phrase that really needs to modify "Stella Adler." It's ridiculously indirect for that phrase to modify "one of the most influential artists in the American theater." So (D) is much less clear than (C) in that part of the sentence.

Plus, we have the same minor issue with the phrase "generations of actors including..." as we did in (A). See above for more on that issue.

So (D) is gone.


(E) has the same problem as (D): the beginning of the sentence needs to modify "Stella Adler." More broadly, "Stella Adler" really needs to be the subject of the sentence, since she's the one that trained the generations of actors -- and it's an indirect mess to use "one of the most influential artists..." as the subject of the sentence.

So (E) is out, and (C) is the best option.

GMATNinja - in this question, "including" is modifying "generations" and not "actors" - does that mean we can form a rule (just like we have in case of SV) that the modification will not modify the NOUN in the PREPOSITIONAL phrase (here "actors" is part of the prepositional phrase ?)

In this question, "including" is modifying "generations" and not "actors" - does that mean we can form a rule (just like we have in case of SV) that the modification will not modify the NOUN in the PREPOSITIONAL phrase (here "actors" is part of the prepositional phrase ?)