Can't 'which' modify an entire sentence?!

See for example question 83 OG 12, " In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for ...."
In choices D and E, 'which' is used in the same way, but OG explanation does not mention anything about its wrongness.

Dear apolo,
I assume you are familiar with this paradox of the GMAT OG. The questions in the GMAT OG are superb, clearly the highest quality questions available anywhere these formats. By contrast, the explanations tend to be anemic: the OG explanations prioritize concision over thoroughness, and many issues at play in the question are not discussed in the explanations. In one or two places, what the folks have written in the OG explanations is so terse that it's open to misinterpretation. The OG questions set an exceptionally high standard, but just about any expert on this forum could provide a better explanation that what's found in the OG.
Does this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike for your, as usual, helpful comment.
Since English is not my mother tongue, it is not so easy for me to thoroughly understand ALL SC questions, and also the explanations of all of them. Purely grammatical points, such as S-V agreement, are easy to apply. But I find some questions in OG (and not the verbal review) actually quite impossible to understand.
It seems to me that some questions and explanations of OG are still mysterious and need to be decoded by others.
Could I ask you that what do you think about this point? I do not know whether English is your mother tongue and whether this makes too much difference, but have you felt that some OG SC questions are rather ambiguous or at least not perfectly explained?
If GMAT has its own version of the rules of standard written English, then if they are not explained clearly, how can others become familiar completely with its version of these rules?
I feel there are still some undiscovered islands of grammar (grammar as a general term) rules in the OG explanations.
-------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that sometimes OG explanations do not mention all errors that exist in a single choice. This also adds to the ambiguity; one might think that GMAT has different standards for a single issue, and then attempt to explain these differences!

Btw, for some questions, I feel that if the OG had not mentioned the correct answer, then non-GMAT respondents would be most probably not able to tell which choice is the right one!
Isn't this somehow funny and illogical? GMAT says what is right and since it has provided the answer for some questions, now we are able to justify its position! This is specially the case for questions that OG says a choice is awkward, unclear, etc.

Mike quite aptly sums it up: just about any expert on this forum could provide a better explanation that what's found in the OG.

So, I would also suggest that the best way is that if you are not very clear on any question in OG, you can search the forum for expert advice on that question.

Dear apolo,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, yes, I am a native English speaker. I was born in the USA, educated here, and except for some relatively short trips, have lived my entire life here. In fact, I am ashamed of the fact that I am not fluent in any languages besides English, but that is another story. My adventures studying Mandarin Chinese as an adult have given me profound appreciation for the incredibly long journey that learning a language represents. My friend, the fact that you are able to express yourself so clearly in a language not your own is an extraordinary accomplishment in and of itself.

It's hard for me to imagine some acting as a GMAT Verbal expert who was not a native English speaker. You see, well over 95% of native English speakers would be entirely baffled but the standards on the GMAT. Of course, most of those people don't take the GMAT and probably don't even know what the GMAT is. Believe it or not, you probably know far more about grammar than most native English speakers in America! The GMAT sets a very high standard.

Again, I want to draw a crystal clear distinction. The Verbal questions in the OG are superb without exception. The explanations of the Verbal questions in the OG vary in quality from adequate to lackluster. It's very important to understand this distinction. Just because there's a certain lack of clarity in the OG explanations does not mean in any way that the questions are ambiguous in the least. For any who fully understands the OG SC standards, every question is 100% clear and unambiguous: it has four answer choices that absolutely have to be wrong for clearly definable reasons, and it has has only one error-free choice that has to be the correct answer. The OG questions, and the GMAT practice questions from better sources, all have this quality of clarity, this freedom from ambiguity. It's just low quality questions that actually are ambiguous: those would be the questions that are endlessly debated in long threads on this forum. I write practice questions myself, and to be perfectly honest, the official question from GMAC are so good that they make me jealous! I wish I could consistently produces questions that good! That's how good the OG questions are.

Also, I want to make clear: the GMAT does NOT have its own rules. There is not a special GMAT version of English. No, instead, you have to understand: for anyone who has grown up speaking English in America, there are many different levels of formality, from very casual to very formal. Perhaps the most formal would be the academic realm, and the manner of speaking in specialized academic writing. Almost as formal is the communication in the business world, because of course, people are always tying to make a good impression on new customers or potential partners whom they haven't met yet. The GMAT, as it were, simply stakes out claim within this larger conversation, and defines it standards with respect to these conversations. For someone learning English as a second language, not familiar with the tone of any of these conversations, I can see that it would be very hard to discern the standards by which the GMAT is declaring one thing wrong and another thing right.

The best way for you to master this side of English is to read. You need to throw yourself into the conversations that make up American business life. Read the newspapers and magazines and periodicals that discuss the business world in English. See this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-im ... bal-score/
There's no simply list of rules that I or anyone could give you. You have to develop a sense of the patterns for yourself. You have to develop "an ear" for formal language, and sense of different ways to convey an idea.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike, really thanks. Indeed very interesting and helpful.
But a few points:

1. I think CR and RC sections, in general, are okay for non-native English speakers. At most, one might not know the meaning of a word or an expression, or cannot understand the tone used in a sentence.
The CR and RC passages and questions in any other language will not be essentially different from their American English version.
After all, the language of logic (used in CR questions) is universal.
I think only SC section can be complicated and ambiguous for non-natives.

2. I find some contradicting issues in your words: Before, you had said that any other grammar book is useless for preparation for GMAT (a couple of posts before). Now, however, you say: "Also, I want to make clear: the GMAT does NOT have its own rules."
Consider this issue of 'which' as the modifier of a clause: one of my grammar books, Communicate What you Mean (written by Carroll W. Pollock) says that 'which' (after a comma) can be used for this purpose. And I feel this book teaches the formal version of English.
But my question is beyond these 'controversial' areas of grammar (that you correctly describe them 'gray (not black or white) areas').
Suppose GMAT had not specified the correct choice for its SC problems. Could experts, like you, answer all the questions correctly?

3. Apart from those reading materials that you have mentioned on the Magoosh blog, is reading academic papers from academic (business or management related) journals (like AMJ, AMR, Strategic Management Journal, etc.) useful?

4. In what you have written above, it seems to me that you have considered GMAT as a tool for entering MBA programs. However, many use GMAT, solely, for getting admission to PhD programs in Business, in which the language used is not similar to the one used in 'American business life.' The language used in a PhD in business environment is not very GMAT-like; the GMAT English, I 'd say, is a bit less formal than English used in academic environment or academic papers.

5. I should also confess that, now, I know much more about the rules of standard written English than about my mother-tongue grammar rules!

6. Finally (perhaps) a funny question: How could you become an expert in GMAT SC section? Have you read many grammar books and then analyzed many published GMAT questions to discover the common patterns among them? ...

Dear apolo,

1) Hmm. It may be that CR & RC are easier for non-native speakers. I'm not one, and I never heard any other non-native speaker make this claim. Interesting. I will pay attention to what others say about this.

2) Yes, I can see how these words would sound like a contradiction. You see, in the realm of English grammar, there's an entire range stretching from very casual to very formal. It exists in all the spoken and written language that has surrounded a native speaker from birth. Different books and different authorities, as it were, stake out a position in this realm and say "this is correct." Different authorities stake out the "region of correct." In a similar way, the GMAT stakes out a position in this realm --- a position toward the more formal side of the language, but not the most formal. Did the GMAT create these rules? Well, no, they simply staked out a position in the larger realm of grammar and defined their own "region of correct." Could we say that the rules here are the GMAT's rules? Well, that's a matter of semantics, and doesn't really matter. What matters is (a) don't trust a non-GMAT book to match perfectly the expectations of the GMAT --- any particular book may be more formal or not formal enough. For example, the web-authority Grammar Girl is considerably less formal than the GMAT. (b) To know what grammar is acceptable on the GMAT, consult the GMAT-prep sources. The MGMAT volume on SC is very good. Magoosh has an extensive set of lessons on SC grammar. (c) Remember, the rules you are learning are not just a hoop through which the GMAT makes you jump: speaking this way consistently will redound to your credit.

3) Academic papers are wonderful reading for the GMAT. Also, GRE RC passages are good --- those tend to have harder vocabulary, and tend to concern more purely academic topics.

4) True, some people use the GMAT to get into other programs. I would estimate that over 90% of GMAT-takers plan to earn a MBA and enter the business world. Some folks are aiming for other academic realms. Yes, I suppose the level of language in Ph.D. programs is a little more formal. Most of my remarks are designed for the majority of GMAT takers.

5) Yes, and that is precisely the danger-zone for non-native speakers --- to know a ton about the rules of the language, but not be as familiar with the "feel" of the language. By contrast, native speakers have a good sense of the "feel" of English, though not necessarily of formal well-spoken English, and are hazy on the rules. The GMAT punishes folks who don't know the rules, and it also punishes people who know the rules but don't have the "feel" of the language.

6) How did I become an expert in GMAT SC? That is an odd question. The funny thing is --- to some extent, the answer is: I don't know. For years, I read and strove to be as well-spoken as possible. Because I have a mathematical mind, I often picked up on patterns in grammar. After years of having this diffuse focus on grammar, I became interested in working with the GMAT. I took a GMAT with minimal preparation, got a 770, got a job with Magoosh, and voila!, I was a GMAT expert! Of course, during my time working with the GMAT, I have honed my understanding on a few points. Certainly the practice of explaining grammar to other with questions, for example here on GMAT Club, as well as writing my own questions and seeing how they are interpreted has also deepened my understanding. The funny thing, though, is that a lot of my "expertise" was developed before I ever paid attention to the GMAT. To some extent, it's always a bit mysterious how any of us become good at those things in which we excel.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike. Really thanks for your patience in answering my questions, great job!

1. About the point 1: well, generally I do not think that my English is very good. But my reading skill was quite strong when I was preparing for and took the GMAT. I could read quite fast and got a nearly perfect score in IELTS reading section. I could read both fast and accurately. Also it was not too difficult for me to understand the logic behind the CR questions. My only weak point was SC. I scored 41 (92% at that time) in the Verbal part, quite a good score for a non-native speaker of English.
I had not read the Manhattan Prep SC book, but the Manhattan Review SC book, which is not as good as the former, at that time.

5. I like this idea of 'feel'. That quite matters a lot.

Again, thanks a lot!

1. You know Mike, what is funny is that some SC explanations do not obey the rules GMAT strictly asserts in its questions.

Two examples:
OG 2015, page 710, the explanation for choice B of question 22: 'This sentence claims that plants acquire
carbon more efficiently than they acquire fungi, which is also nonsensical' [emphasis added]

OG 2015, page 718, the explaantion for choice A of question 38: 'In addition, the use of the past perfect tense
had been places the skepticism earlier on the time line than the admiration, which is misleading. [emphasis added]

In both cases, especially in the second one, 'which' is modifying the whole previous clause!
It actually seems that even the creators of the exam sometimes prefer to talk 'naturally' than to obey their strict grammatical points!
(Though I know that, as you said and as many others say, OG explanations are not written as precisely as the questions)

2. Something about the reading list for GMAT (according to your Magoosh blog post): Sometimes I encounter grammatical errors, in articles from Scientific American or New York Times.
Example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ctor-away/
Second paragraph, fourth line: 'like I did'

Or I encountered an structure in a NYT atricle that seemed wrong according to my knowledge. (Of course in some cases it might be that there is a more advanced grammatical point in work that I do not know)

However, I have found reading really useful, especially after learning the related grammatical issues; one can analyze the structures while reading articles from such sources, learn idioms 'in' context and increase his/her knowledge of different scientific fields.

3. I also think that reading GMAT reading passages is also a good option for learning SC issues. Do you agree?

Actually I have thought to myself that perhaps we can learn more about GMAT grammatical preferences and conventions not only by analyzing their SC problems (and their explanations), but also by extracting those preferences and conventions from OG's reading passages. Do you agree?

Dear apolo,

1) Yes, it's extremely important to recognize that the OG questions and the OG explanations are two completely different beast, not written by the same people, not produced at the same time, etc. The fact that they are all published in the same author-less volume, in the same font, can be construed to imply all sorts of erroneous assumptions. The questions are rigorous tested and have appeared on several live GMATs for years before being retired. Then, once returned, new folks, perhaps a generation younger than the question writers, had to write the explanations for the back of the OG. These have not been tested or vetted in any way. There is absolutely no reason to expect everything in the explanations would adhere to GMAT SC standards.

2) I said those sources were, in general, good sources. I did not say they were perfect. If you want perfection, you are not going to find it in this life.

3) GMAT RC usually adheres to GMAT SC standards---but not always. I have seen examples, in GMAT RC passages, that run afoul of the high standards set by the GMAT SC. Again, this will be usually helpful, but not perfect.

Again, if what you seek is unsullied perfection, you need to give up the business world, give up life in the sublunary world, retire as monk to some isolated monastery, religion of your choice, and live in retreat. If you are going to be out here with the rest of us, you are going to have to become resilient tolerant of imperfection.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi apolo,

Mike has done a really great job answering your questions so far, but I would like to reiterate one point in particular.

Considering how rules can change depending on how formal or casual the tone is, Mike's suggestion to read as much as you can is really important. Of course, it's a great way to add another element to your study materials, but reading as much as possible is a great way to see how professional writers nuance their work.

Happy to elaborate further if you'd like. Best of luck!

Rich

Hi Mike,

How are you doing?
Haven't heard of you for a while and wish you are fine!

Apolo

Is there actually an official GMAT Sentence Correction answer choice in which the only error is this use of "which"? If not, this rule may have been made up.

Dear HiLine,
I'm happy to respond.

As a general rule, the GMAT usually tests many different things on each SC question. Any sentence that has a "that"/"which" clause will have multiple levels, multiple noun/verb pairs, etc. so there would be a great deal to test. Therefore, I highly doubt that this split alone is the deciding split of any question. Having said that, I guarantee that what we have described here is a consistent pattern that appears side-by-side with an assortment of other grammatical ideas throughout the spectrum of official SC questions.

Mike

Thanks for the response, Mike! Does this rule, or rather this pattern, come from some observation that no GMAT SC answer choice ever that uses "which" to modify an entire phrase has ever been the correct answer choice?

Dear HiLine,

No. As with many grammar rules, it comes from the inherent logic of grammar, which the GMAT inerrantly follows.

The word "which" is a pronoun. The word "that" has many uses, but one of them is as a pronoun. A pronoun has one and only one legitimate grammatical use, and that is to represent an individual noun that appears elsewhere in the sentence. A pronoun can't represent anything other than a noun. This is fundamental to what a pronoun is. Like SVA, this is purely objective and not debatable in the least.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Fascinating! Can't believe I've been using "which" wrong the whole time ... I mean, using "which" to refer to a whole phrase is so common, it's almost unbelievable that this usage is actually wrong.

Posted from my mobile device