the subject in the second clause refers back to the subject in the first clause.

thanq for ur reply..
yes, i'm referring to Choice A..

But in one your video classes, you taught that the subject in the second clause refers back to the subject in the first clause.
that's the idea..
thanq

As an actress and, more importantly, as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

(A) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including
(B) Stella Adler, one of the most influential artists in the American theater, trained several generations of actors who include
(C) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several generations of actors whose ranks included
(D) one of the most influential artists in the American theater was Stella Adler, who trained several generations of actors including
(E) one of the most influential artists in the American theater, Stella Adler, trained several generations of actors whose ranks included

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).

several generations of actors whose ranks included Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

GMATNinja I was wondering if C is ok in terms of meaning? Because one can read it "Stella .. was ... an influential artist..., training several people ..."

And this feels like being an influential artist CAUSED her to train people.

as in "Joe played football carelessly, injuring his foot"

I admit the other options are weaker choices and C is still the best, but does it have the error I noticed or not?

Can some one please explain this part? My doubt is how "ranks" include MB and RDN?

Regards,
Arup Sarkar

Dear Kona,
I'm happy to respond.

Here, we are running into the distinction of vital vs. non-vital modifiers (a.k.a restrictive vs. non-restrictive, or mission-critical vs. non-mission-critical). See:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/that-vs-which-on-the-gmat/

A vital noun modifier can come between a noun and an ordinary modifier. They constitute an important exception to the Modifier Touch Rule. A vital noun modifier is "vital" for establishing the identity of the noun. For example:
... a box of nails,which is on the floor.
In this sentence, "of nails" is a vital noun modifier, because without it, the "box" could be any generic box --- a shoe box, a match box, a tissue box, a refrigerator box, etc. We have no idea. We need "of nails" to tell us exactly what kind of box. Because "of nails" is a vital noun modifier, it can come between the noun "box" and the modifying clause starting with "which."

Similarly, in
.... when she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, which were televised nationwide.
In this sentence, "hearings" by itself would tell us nothing --- Congress has hearing all the time. If we add "on the impeachment", then it's a little more specific, although a few different figures have been up on possible impeachment charges in history, so this alone is not enough to guarantee the exact identify of the hearings. If we add the whole modifier, "on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon" --- OK, now we know exactly which hearings we are discussing. That entire phrase is necessary to establish the identity of the noun. It's a vital noun modifier, which means it can enjoy the privilege of coming between the noun "hearing" and the clause starting with "which". This is a valid exception to the Modifier Touch Rule.

BUT
Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including ...
Look at what comes between the noun "Stellla Adler" and the "who" clause: a verb and everything that follows the verb (that's called the "predicate"). We absolutely are not allowed to put a full bonafide verb or verb + predicate between a noun and its modifier. That is a grossly incorrect violation of the Modifier Touch Rule. That's why this answer choice should be taken out back and shot.

The Modifier Touch Rule is an important rule. It's not absolute, but it is important. We can't just shove any words we like between an noun and its modifier. The only thing we can put in there is a vital noun modifier that is essential for establishing the identity of the noun. This is a crucial distinction to understand for the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I'm happy to respond.

The first thing I'll say is --- after the long introductory phrase before the underlined part, it's very natural to expect the name right away. Choice (D) & (E) are awkward in that they delay the name even further. Stella Adler is the focus of the sentence, the star of this particular sentence, so we want to get to her. Just as it wouldn't make sense to have a 3 hour movie in which we meet the star of the movie only in the last 30 minutes, so it doesn't make sense for the subject & focus of a sentence to be unnecessarily buried further & further in the sentence. That's one problem with (D) & (E). We will reject both of those.

(A) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including
Trainwreck modifier mistake!! The phrase beginning with "who" is an ordinary noun modifier, modifying the subject, Stella Adler. Noun modifiers much touch the noun they modifier. This is incorrect.

(B) Stella Adler, one of the most influential artists in the American theater, trained several generations of actors who include
Most of this is good, until the end. We get a weird shift in verb tense in the final verb --- everything in the sentence is past tense until we get to present test "include." Why is this last verb in the present tense? That simply doesn't make sense with the rest of the sentence. This is incorrect.

(C) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several generations of actors whose ranks included
Brilliant! I have to say, as someone who regularly writes GMAT SC practice questions, I am always impressed by the brilliance of the folks at GMAC. This one is 100% correct. Unlike the "who" modifier in (A), the "training" modifier is a little more flexible ---- it can be thought of as modifying the entire independent clause, so it doesn't need to "touch" anything. The truly brilliant part is --- the sentence creates the expectation that the underlined section would end:
... several generations of actors, including ...
That would have been perfectly correct. Of course, if we just replaced the active participle "including" with the passive participle "included", that would be entirely incorrect:
...several generations of actors, included ...
Instead, the folks at GMAC came up with this very clever alternative:
...several generations of actors whose ranks included...
This is different from what one might have expected, but it's 100% correct. Here, the word "included" is not a participle, but a full bonafide verb, the verb of the clause beginning with "whose ranks." Because this structure was unexpected and less familiar, I see that many folks on this page rejected choice (C). That's the sign of a very well written question, if the correct answer is something that many people thing sounds wrong.

OA = (C)


I don't know whether laxieqv, who posted that comment 9 years ago, is still following this post, but just FYI, in the first Godfather movie, Marlon Brando plays the elderly father Vito Corleone, and in the following, Godfather II, Robert Di Nero (a generation younger than Brando), played the young Vito Corleone in the flashback portions. I highly recommend both of those movies as classics.

Does all this make sense?
Mike