It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 15:28

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Correct Sentence: Despite the financial setbacks of the last

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Correct Sentence: Despite the financial setbacks of the last [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jul 2011, 12:40
Correct Sentence: Despite the financial setbacks of the last three years, Ms. Hanson is betting that there are still many East Coast women with considerable
capital
who are ready to redeploy part of it.

According to Aristotle SC, the above sentence is correct. But I want to understand the grammar rule: when is a prepositional phrase allowed between a noun and the relative clause that modifies that noun?

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4287

Kudos [?]: 7901 [0], given: 363

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 10:43
Quote:
Despite the financial setbacks of the last three years, Ms. Hanson is betting that there are still many East Coast women with considerable capital who are ready to redeploy part of it
According to Aristotle SC, the above sentence is correct.

Is this sentence correct? The opening modifier ‘Despite the financial setbacks of the last three years’ seems to be modifying Ms. Hanson rather than East Coast women, who are placed far distant from their modifier. Is this not a case of misplaced modifier?

As far the intervention of a prepositional phrase between a noun, and its modifying relative clause, I believe ther are no rules but the context that decides the issue, depending upon the prepositional phrase’s essentiality to the context. As you have rightly pointed out, when the relative clause modifies its logical noun rather than the postpositional noun, then I think this sentence is correct to that extent. Please remember that ‘capital’ also is a noun in this given case, but still irrelevant because, capital is not a noun that can be ready to re-deploy. Only people can do it.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7901 [0], given: 363

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 13:25
Thanks a lot for the reply. Here is the question:

Despite the financial setbacks of the last three years, Ms. Hanson bets that there are still many East Coast women with considerable capital that are ready to redeploy part of them.
A. bets that there are still many East Coast women with considerable capital that are ready to redeploy part of them
B. is betting that there are still many East Coast women with considerable capital who are ready to redeploy part of it
C. is betting that there are still many East Coast women having considerable capital who are ready to redeploy part of that D. has been betting that there were still many East Coast women with considerable capital who are ready to redeploy part of it
E. is betting that there will still be many East Coast women with considerable capital who would be ready to redeploy part of these

So, are you saying a relative clause can NEVER modify a propositional noun? Please help me understand, when can it do so? Any example if possible?

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 17:46
daagh wrote:
Quote:
Despite the financial setbacks of the last three years, Ms. Hanson is betting that there are still many East Coast women with considerable capital who are ready to redeploy part of it
According to Aristotle SC, the above sentence is correct.

Is this sentence correct? The opening modifier ‘Despite the financial setbacks of the last three years’ seems to be modifying Ms. Hanson rather than East Coast women, who are placed far distant from their modifier. Is this not a case of misplaced modifier?

As far the intervention of a prepositional phrase between a noun, and its modifying relative clause, I believe ther are no rules but the context that decides the issue, depending upon the prepositional phrase’s essentiality to the context. As you have rightly pointed out, when the relative clause modifies its logical noun rather than the postpositional noun, then I think this sentence is correct to that extent. Please remember that ‘capital’ also is a noun in this given case, but still irrelevant because, capital is not a noun that can be ready to re-deploy. Only people can do it.

hi daagh, I realized something. Please tell me if I got it wrong.

As we know there are 2 types of relative clause modifiers:
1. Essential - modifiers WITHOUT the COMMA, esp. that. But who, which, whom, etc could also be essential.
2. Non-essential - modifiers WITH the COMMA. All relative pronouns but "that".

I got a question in my MGMAT test today; see sc-moon-part-of-earth-116058.html

Note that the right solution is: Some scientists suggest that the moon was formed from part of the Earth that had perhaps been dislodged by a meteor.

MGMAT explanation says:
In "Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor."
- The relative pronoun “which” must refer to the immediately preceding noun, suggesting illogically in this case that “the Earth” was dislodged by a meteor.
In "Some scientists suggest that the moon was formed from part of the Earth that had perhaps been dislodged by a meteor."
- The modifying phrase “that had perhaps been dislodged” correctly refers to “part of the Earth.”

Base on all this, it seems to me that an ESSENTIAL MODIFIER can modify a noun, which could be followed "short" prepositional phrase, whereas a NON-ESSENTIAL MODIFIER MUST modify the noun it follows.

Is my above conclusion justified? Is there some other interpretation of MGMAT's explanation that I am missing or over assuming? Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Manager
Status: On...
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Posts: 184

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 62

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 19:08
abhicoolmax wrote:
MGMAT explanation says:
In "Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor."
- The relative pronoun “which” must refer to the immediately preceding noun, suggesting illogically in this case that “the Earth” was dislodged by a meteor.
In "Some scientists suggest that the moon was formed from part of the Earth that had perhaps been dislodged by a meteor."
- The modifying phrase “that had perhaps been dislodged” correctly refers to “part of the Earth.”

Base on all this, it seems to me that an ESSENTIAL MODIFIER can modify a noun, which could be followed "short" prepositional phrase, whereas a NON-ESSENTIAL MODIFIER MUST modify the noun it follows.

Is my above conclusion justified? Is there some other interpretation of MGMAT's explanation that I am missing or over assuming? Thanks.

I would suggest 1st understand the meaning the sentence.
Then read the sentence cutting the prep. phrases to see if it is logically and grammatically correct.

Some scientists suggest that the moon was formed from part [strike]of the Earth[/strike]that had perhaps been dislodged by a meteor.

So it correctly modifies the part.....
Hope this makes sense.
_________________

Labor cost for typing this post >= Labor cost for pushing the Kudos Button
http://gmatclub.com/forum/kudos-what-are-they-and-why-we-have-them-94812.html

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 62

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 19:37
krishp84 wrote:
I would suggest 1st understand the meaning the sentence.
Then read the sentence cutting the prep. phrases to see if it is logically and grammatically correct.

Some scientists suggest that the moon was formed from part [strike]of the Earth[/strike]that had perhaps been dislodged by a meteor.

So it correctly modifies the part.....
Hope this makes sense.

Are you sure that striking of the preposition is the right way to think thorough this problem here? You might be correct, but I feel a bit skeptical.

Why can't your logic apply to the 1st option then? That is,
Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part [strike]of the Earth[/strike], which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

That's why I thought the reasoning might perhaps be that Essential modifiers can modify the main noun that is followed by a prepositional phrase.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Manager
Status: On...
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Posts: 184

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 62

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 20:59
abhicoolmax wrote:
Are you sure that striking of the preposition is the right way to think thorough this problem here? You might be correct, but I feel a bit skeptical.

Why can't your logic apply to the 1st option then? That is,
Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part [strike]of the Earth[/strike], which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

That's why I thought the reasoning might perhaps be that Essential modifiers can modify the main noun that is followed by a prepositional phrase.

Can you post all the choices ?

In the example suggested above, there are 2 errors -

Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part [strike]of the Earth[/strike], which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.
This is wrong.

WHICH always modifies the word touching it.
WHICH is a non-essential modifier.

So I would read the sentence as :
Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.

meaning wise - Earth was dislodged by the meteor - Not part of the earth - again nonsense
another error - THAT missing after suggests - suggests that should be there.

Hope it makes sense now.

Modifiers are tricky, but the easy part is you can crack the code if you know the basics and read the meaning. Cutting prep. phrases needs to be done only after understanding the meaning
First understand the meaning. Then apply the rules. Cutting prep. phrases are meant to save you time and is NOT A RULE.
...Not straight away like you do in Maths naturally.
_________________

Labor cost for typing this post >= Labor cost for pushing the Kudos Button
http://gmatclub.com/forum/kudos-what-are-they-and-why-we-have-them-94812.html

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 62

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 21:15
Thanks krishp84, I think I understand but I will refer back to my MGMAT SC book again to see some of the core concepts if I am missing any.

krishp84 wrote:
Can you post all the choices ?

If you see in my original post regarding this question, the post has the link Here it is again: sc-moon-part-of-earth-116058.html

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Manager
Status: On...
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Posts: 184

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 62

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 21:28
abhicoolmax wrote:
If you see in my original post regarding this question, the post has the link Here it is again: sc-moon-part-of-earth-116058.html
Thanks.

_________________

Labor cost for typing this post >= Labor cost for pushing the Kudos Button
http://gmatclub.com/forum/kudos-what-are-they-and-why-we-have-them-94812.html

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 62

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4287

Kudos [?]: 7901 [0], given: 363

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 21:59
Quote:
Abhicoolmax wrote
So, are you saying a relative clause can NEVER modify a propositional noun? Please help me understand, when can it do so? Any example if possible?

I only referred to the case you quoted. I will not say that a relative clause can NEVER modify a propositional noun. It can.
For eg: The members of the team that won the world cup took a victory lap.

Here what does the term that in the relative clause ‘that won the world cup’ refer to – the members or the team -? Obviously the team and not the members. Right?
So it is the logical context that decides than any fixed rule, I suppose. I am not aware of any MGMAT rules since I have never read MGMAT stuff, except in references as this.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7901 [0], given: 363

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4287

Kudos [?]: 7901 [0], given: 363

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2011, 22:24
To add to the befuddlement of the moon issue, let me ask

"Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part ‘of the Earth’, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor."
‘ of the earth’, - is this phrase an inessential modifier that can be dispensed with?
If I strike off the of the ‘of the Earth’, the sentence will be
"Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.
Now the question is whether it was formed from the part of earth, any other planet, or the sun itself. Doesn’t it render the meaning quite ambiguous? Then are we right in saying tht it is an inessential modifier?

Secondly I would also think, to use ‘that’ in the place of ‘, which’ is also incorrect since a restrictive relative pronoun cannot flout the touch rule even as much as the non-restrictive ,which . The best way to solve this issue is to avoid the relative pronouns per se and instead use a participle. Look at the following sentence
"Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, dislodged perhaps by a meteor."
A participle separated by a comma need not modify the noun or word before but can modify any logical part of the preceding part. Any takers?
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7901 [0], given: 363

Re: Prepositional phrase between a noun and the relative clause   [#permalink] 30 Jul 2011, 22:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by