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

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."