Does "That" have to be next to the noun it modifies?

Question

Inside a prep book the following sentence is WRONG on the grounds that "that" modifies the closest noun "home".

John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents, held many parties in his family home that featured elaborate meals of local fish and lobster, famous guest and late nights.

Essentially the book says this is wrong because "that" modifies home; logically the home didn't feature meals, fish, guest etc., the parties did, not homes.

However, in the same book, the following sentence is CORRECT with the reasoning that "that" is not restrictive and clearly modifies parties.

John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food.

Can't we use the same logic that kids can't feature clowns, animals foods etc. How is it that in this example it clearly modifies parties, but in the above that doesn't clearly modify parties and rather can modify home.

What am I missing here

EducationAisle · Answer

There actually are numerous officially correct examples where  that  does  not  modify the nearest noun.

I am assuming you mean  restrictive , since  that  is a  restrictive  pronoun.

that  can only modify  non-persons . So,  that   cannot  modify  kids .

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

kornn · Answer

Dear VeritasPrepBrian VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepRon AnthonyRitz VeritasPrepHailey VeritasPrepErika VeritasPrepBrandon

Dear the author of Veritas SC book and all Veritas verbal experts, I have similar problems in the seeming INCONSISTENCY found in Veritas SC book as well.

P. 161 Q. 18 in Veritas SC book:
The following sentence is WRONG on the grounds that "that" modifies the closest noun "home".
According to the solution: "Because "that featured..." follows "home," the sentence suggests that the home "featured elaborate meals of local fish and lobster, famous guests, and late nights," and that is clearly ILLOGICAL"

Quote:

John F. Kennedy, one of the most social U.S. presidents, held many parties in his family home that featured elaborate meals of local fish and lobster, famous guest and late nights.

P. 39 Q. 1 in Veritas SC book:
However, in the same book, the following sentence is CORRECT with the reasoning that "that" is not restrictive and clearly modifies parties.
According to the solution: "Here the relative clause that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food is properly modifying "parties." Remember: "That" clauses are not nearly as strict as "which" clauses and can modify a noun that is not directly beside it.

Quote:

John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food.

P. 39 Q. 2 in Veritas SC book:
the following sentence is WRONG
The solution is not clear to me

According to the solution : "Here the relative clause that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food is illogically modifying "house"

Quote:

John held parties in his house that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food.

If possible, could you please provide official examples for the 3 cases above.
Thank you all!

According to the solution : "Here the relative clause that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food is illogically modifying "house" If possible, could you please provide official examples for the 3 cases above. Thank you all!

kornn · Answer

Dear  GMATGuruNY ,

The below sentence should be wrong right?

"for his kids" is an adverbial prep phrase here because it modifies "held"
So,  "that" clause cannot jump adverbial prep phrase.

Is this correct?
Thank you sir! :please :please :please

AnthonyRitz · Answer

Varotkorn,

These are excellent questions.

I don't happen to have official examples available off the top of my head. That said, I think these Veritas questions are wholly accurate and quite reasonable/authentic relative to the actual GMAT. Furthermore, in my view, there is actually no inconsistency here. Allow me to clarify...

First of all, a disclaimer:  The English language is big, complicated, and messy. Rules often have exceptions, and it is quite impractical (and unproductive) to attempt to learn every rule of the language. (If you're a grammar masochist, you can buy the Grammar Desk Reference, by Gary Lutz, and go nuts. But I don't recommend it.) I, frankly, do not know, or even care to know, every rule (and I say this as someone with a 790 GMAT including a 51 on Verbal). Sometimes you just have to know where there may be more or less wiggle room, and then prioritize the issues on which you simply cannot compromise. To highlight the complexity here, note that the word "that" can act as (at minimum) a relative pronoun, a subordinating conjunction, and adjective, and an adverb -- with different rules in each case. I do not purport to offer here the definitive and comprehensive treatise on use of the word "that."

Okay, disclaimer finished. In each of the cases you cite, "that" acts as a relative pronoun. "that" is a more flexible relative pronoun than, for instance, "which," but it still mostly has to be next to what it modifies. The rule, as I teach it, is as follows:

A relative clause almost always modifies the closest noun of the right type to fit the relative pronoun.

The key point here is the phrase "right type to fit the relative pronoun." The pronoun "that" generally refers to objects (in rare cases it can refer to people, but it does not usually do so). So it will almost always have to modify the closest *object* in the preceding portion of the sentence.

In the first example, that's "home" -- incorrect, since the "home" is not logically what features the things described in the relative clause. So it's wrong.

In the second example, that's "parties" -- totally correct, since the parties do feature the things described in the relative clause. What about "kids," you say? The "kids" are people, not objects, and thus are not the right type of noun to fit the relative pronoun "that." The relative pronoun therefore ignores the kids, jumps over them, and keeps going to find the next-closest noun (and the closest of the right type): "parties." No error.

In the third example, it's "house" again -- incorrect, since this is again not the logical target of the relative clause. Why can't the "that" jump past this and go to the "parties," you say? Because "house" is an object, and this is the right type of noun to fit the relative pronoun "that." So the "that" can't go past it to get to the more-distant "parties." Not okay.

I hope this clarifies the rule. And, to reiterate, even here there can be some narrow exceptions. But try not to get too stuck on what those may be. Prioritizing the right issues is more important than nitpicking every nuance of every obscure grammar rule, for getting that V51.

P.s. To address the question you posed to another tutor, I will note one more thing:

You said,

I believe that "for his kids" is actually an adjectival modifier that modifies "parties."

kornn · Answer

Dear AnthonyRitz , Thank you for your response. It is very clear

I have one question below: According to Veritas SC book, the correct sentence is: From the above, I think that "in his house" is an adverbial modifier because it modifies the verb "held". Where were the parties held? At John's house. If it is an adjectival modifier, "in his house" would EITHER modify John (clearly not an intended meaning) OR jump over the verb "held" to modify "parties" (I don't know if an adjectival modifier can jump over a verb) Similarly, I think "for his kids" modifies "held". For whom these parties were held? For John's kids. That's why I think "in his house" - and similarly "for his kids" - are both adverbial modifiers. Could you please clarify why both or either one of them is adjectival modifier? Thank you!

AnthonyRitz · Answer

Varotkorn,

I think in the version "In his house, John held parties that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food." the prepositional phrase "in his house" modifies the entire independent clause to follow (and, yes, you could say it modifies "held" more so than "parties" in this case, so I guess maybe it's adverbial). But this is a different construction than the one we were discussing before, and in that other construction I still think it modified "parties." Note, though, that this distinction is not one that I focus on when doing sentence correction.

kornn · Answer

Dear AnthonyRitz When I see this question https://gmatclub.com/forum/visitors-to- ... l#p2458964, I have some more questions. (Please don't get tired of me yet

) The principle applies only to relative clause but does not apply to V-ing modifier (modifying noun), right? Official example: Like the great navigators who first sailed around the Earth gathering information about its size and the curvature of its surface, astronomers have made new observations that show with startling directness the large-scale geometry of the universe. Here "gathering information" jumps over relative clause to modify "navigators". So, V-ing modifier is more flexible than relative clause, right? And when you say "almost always", there are some questions not following this rule, right? But the other OG question I posted above seems to reject choice E. based solely on this rule.

AnthonyRitz · Answer

Participle phrases also generally have to be next to what they modify. The main exception is that (1) a participle phrase (2) at the end of the sentence (or clause) (3) set off by a comma (4) correctly modifies a nonadjacent word earlier in the sentence (5) as long as it's clear.

So your example sentence seems to narrowly violate this rule. But it does sound okay. It may be wrong, or there may be some other narrow exception it relies upon. I'd have to see the full question and my other choices to know.

Update: I went and found it and I'd totally pick this answer over any other. It's correct. I'd guess that it omits the comma for style and clarity reasons, since it's in the modifier that starts with "like" and could otherwise seem to apply to the subsequent "astronomers." "who sailed" is a clause, containing, as it does, both subject and verb (like every relative clause), and this participle phrase is at the end of it. So hey, close enough.

And yes -- there do exist other exceptions to this rule as well as the aforementioned rule for relative pronouns. But also yes, many questions do not meet exceptions and are wrong solely for violating these rules.

If you spend your study time looking for exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, I guarantee you will always find them. This is the wrong way to study sentence correction. You need to do process of elimination on SC, and you have to learn to  prioritize  -- to say, "Gosh, I'm not entirely sure about this answer choice, or maybe I don't even like it, but I absolutely will not tolerate that answer and that one and that one and that one, so I guess I'll pick this one by default." There is often something in a 700-level right answer to a sentence correction question that you simply won't like.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Does "That" have to be next to the noun it modifies?

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards