Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standi

Question

Project SC Butler: Day 160: Sentence Correction (SC1) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods , emphasizes teaching through the target language only—the rationale being that students will be able to work out grammatical rules from the language provided.

A) Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods

B) When taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods, foreign-language instruction

C) When taught by the direct method, foreign-language instruction, in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods

D) The direct method of foreign-language instruction, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods

E) Instructing foreign languages by the direct method, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods

generis · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION Project SC Butler: Day 160: Sentence Correction (SC1) HIGHLIGHTS • A very subtle meaning dimension exists in these sentences. In the first three options, "foreign-language instruction " should be "foreign language." -- Foreign-language instruction, IF taught, is taught to people who themselves want to teach foreign language. Those people do not need to be immersed in the language or to learn grammar. -- The sentence contrasts two methods and highlights the direct method, which is the logical subject. -- The illogical subject of the first three options is foreign-language instruction. -- we need an option in which the direct method and the traditional method are contrasted. Think: Do foreign language teachers themselves need to be taught grammar by immersion? Good heavens. • Meaning? There are a few ways to teach foreign languages. One method focuses on traditional grammar and translation methods. Another way is called the "direct method," which emphasizes learning grammar through constant exposure to and immersion in the language. • WHEN - it's okay to use when in certain circumstances even if no actual time is listed. -- put aside the subject "foreign-language instruction." When X is taught by the direct method, X emphasizes teaching through the target language only. -- This is a hidden zero conditional. If X is taught by the direct method, THEN X emphasizes teaching through the target language only. That sentence is a statement of fact, a zero conditional. We are allowed to use when to describe conditions that are part of always-true statements of fact. Zero conditional: IF simple present, THEN simple present. The time frame is now and always. Because of that time frame, we can use when. If X happens, THEN Y happens. WHEN X happens, then Y happens. I explain this "hidden zero conditional" setup and how to handle it in THIS POST, here . THE PROMPT Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods , emphasizes teaching through the target language only—the rationale being that students will be able to work out grammatical rules from the language provided. THE OPTIONS • I approach this option in two ways. The last bullet point contains the second approach. • the when-clause is nonessential. Strike it to see what happens to the meaning. • foreign-language instruction . . . standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods, emphasizes teaching through the target language only • there is no contrast. One problem stems from "foreign-language instruction ." The logical subjects of this sentence are two different methods of teaching foreign language. The logical subject is not foreign language instruction. • OBVIOUS EROR. Now put the when-clause back in. The sentence has verb error or a comma splice or both. The gerund standing should be the verb stands, which is parallel to emphasizes. Then we should omit the comma after methods and insert an AND. Eliminate A • Strike the nonessential phrase again to see what happens. • Meaning problem. This sentence is illogical, too. -- A foreign language and its grammar are taught to clueless students. These students are not taught foreign language instruction. -- Teach and instruct imply the same thing. This sentence is illogical. The inclusion of both "taught" and "instruction" is confusing at best and logically redundant at worst. Teaching how to teach is not the subject. -- Students who need immersion and do not know the grammar of a language (material after the em dash) are not teachers of that language. Eliminate B • Again, foreign-language instruction is not the subject. • "Foreign language instruction " should be foreign languages • Insert what is implied in the when-clause and blot out the noun-adjective "foreign-language" in order to see the subject: When instruction is] taught by the direct method, instruction ... emphasizes teaching through the target language only.

• to contrast is to compare differences. Logically, the thing that stands in contrast to traditional methods is not foreign-language instruction but rather the direct method . • This incorrect comparison is evident in A, B, and C. The sentences have illogical subjects and thus illogical meanings. • logically incoherent and confusing Eliminate C • now the sentence is logical because the two methods are contrasted. -- the direct method of foreign-language instruction traditional methods ] emphasizes immersion. KEEP • Because the sentence begins with instructing foreign languages, in a simple noun phrase, it is the presumed subject. --the structure is frustrating because method should be compared to method. -- "which" is frustrating: if "which" refers to "the direct method," then "instructing foreign languages" still (illogically) emphasizes immersion. If "which" refers to instructing foreign language, then that noun illogical is contrasted with traditional grammar and translation methods -- Instructing foreign language does not itself emphasize immersion. The direct method does so. Method should be compared to method. The clear subject should be "the direct method." • confusion is highly likely because this option seems to compare instructing foreign languages to traditional grammar and translation methods • we have to work too hard to figure this one out. Compare it to (D). Option D is straightforward. It has no ambiguity. (D) wins. The correct answer is D COMMENTS In some SC questions, figuring out the four wrong answers cannot be done in isolation. Once we see (D) and realize that the sentence should compare methods, even if we cannot articulate exactly what is wrong with the other four options (although "instruction" and "taught" ought to stand out as strange), we can say that they do not compare the direct method with the traditional method. The trick is to stay calm when you cannot find any obvious grammar errors such as S/V or pronoun disagreement. As soon as we figure out that the direct and traditional methods are being compared, we can check the sentences for meaning. Only D gets is right. On this question, kudos go to correct answers that explain. A good effort but incorrect answer gets a smiley face. I am glad you all posted. Brave is good.

Lampard42 · Answer

in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods modifies direct method + when taught by the direct method modifies FLI.

A) Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods -  ", standing" to modify direct method is not required . Just standing is sufficient.

B) When taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods, foreign-language instruction  - Not sure of what "standing in contrast" modifies

C) When taught by the direct method. foreign-language instruction, in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods -  Wrongly modified due to the placement of foreign-language instruction in middle.

D) The direct method of foreign-language instruction, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods -  Which generally modifies the noun nearest to it, but in case of essential modifier interfering (of FLI) then it modifies the noun before the essential modifier. Correct

E) Instructing foreign languages by the direct method, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods  - Instructing doesn't emphasize but method does

itoyj · Answer

In option C shouldn't there be comma instead of full stop after direct method?

Posted from my mobile device

ahabib · Answer

A) Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method,  standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods 
 
Modifier error. The second modifier (in red) should TOUCH the thing it is modifying)

B)  When taught by the direct method , standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods, foreign-language instruction
 
Same error as (A)

C) When taught by the direct method,  foreign-language instruction ,  in contrast  to traditional grammar and translation methods
 
Looks good

D) The direct method of foreign-language instruction,  which stands  in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods
 
1) "Which" should be modifying "The direct method", however it is modifying "instruction"
2) "Which stands in contrast" is a messy way of saying "In contrast"

E) Instructing foreign languages by the direct method,  which stands  in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods

"Which stands in contrast" is too messy / not as concise as (C), which simply says "In contrast"

zhanbo · Answer

It took me 2 minutes and 6 seconds to decide on  choice (D) .

For the main clause, what "emphasizes teaching through the target language only"? It is not merely "Foreign-language instruction" but "The direct method of foreign-language instruction". Or, if the subject is to be compared with "traditional grammar and translation methods", the subject needs to be a method as well.

(A) (1)The subject cannot be contrasted with "traditional grammar and translation methods“. (2) "when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods," is a very awkward construction.

(B) Same two issues as in (A)

(C) The subject cannot be contrasted with "traditional grammar and translation methods“.

(D) No issue.

(E) The subject cannot be contrasted with "traditional grammar and translation methods“.

ccheryn · Answer

Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods,  emphasizes teaching through the target language only—the rationale being that students will be able to work out grammatical rules from the language provided.

when is a adverbial modifier, it can modify either a clause or the verb but it cannot modify a noun.
so foreign language instruction which is a noun cannot be modified by when
so A,B,C are wrong

E) Instructing foreign languages by the direct method, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods  ( verbing modifier and a relative clause (dependent clause) . so IC missing. hence wrong)
 
D) The direct method of foreign-language instruction, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods  ( which can modify both subject or the noun touching it, here entire noun phrase being modified. so no major error this is correct choice)

J2S2019 · Answer

IMO correct answer is D

Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods, emphasizes teaching through the target language only—the rationale being that students will be able to work out grammatical rules from the language provided.

A) Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods - "When" cannot modify a noun - Incorrect

B) When taught by the direct method, standing in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods, foreign-language instruction - Same as A

C) When taught by the direct method, foreign-language instruction, in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods - Same as A

D) The direct method of foreign-language instruction, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods - ",which..." generally a non-essential modifer used to modify the immediate preceding noun, but it can jump over some noun pharases associated with the noun it modifies to catch the main context, like here "the driect method" is being modified whreas the noun phrase "of foreign-language instruction" is skipped while the modification is done - Correct usage.

E) Instructing foreign languages by the direct method, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods- meaning issue, Instructing is not what is the intended usage, rather the Direct Method is what needs to be modified - Incorrect.

TheNightKing · Answer

Phew! This is a tricky one (or may be just for me). I can try try to post an explanation but I am really not sure of what is happening here. I have marked the OA as D but I don't know.

generis · Answer

I have posted the official explanation  HERE

ahabib · Answer

Hi generis , I've got a few issues I'm not quite getting, even after reading the explanation. 1) I'm having trouble figuring out what "Which" is modifying in (D) . Is it referring back to "The direct method" or to foreign-language instruction? I.E, if we have a construction such as What is "which" modifying?? Here's somewhat of a similar problem, where the modifier is "reaching" inside the prepositional phrase https://gmatclub.com/forum/an-innovativ ... 02853.html 2) I understand that there is a meaning shift between "foreign languages" being taught and "foreign language instruction" being taught, however since the original sentence doesn't make that absolutely clear, we're left to decide which is better since it's not clear cut, which is why I think (C) is a valid contender.. 3) You mentioned "Redundancy" in (C), can you elaborate a bit more on what exactly is redundant? Lastly, thank you for the effort you put in, you're awesome

thangvietnam · Answer

I am disturbed between choice C and D. 
it takes me a long time for these two choices.
I choose d because direct methods can stand in contrast to tradition methods logically. this is certain.

krrishwins · Answer

I have question related to answer choice - D,

in MGMAT book it is specifically mentioned that "Use which only to refer to the noun immediately preceding it - never to refer to an entire clause"

As per the above reference the choice D is wrong. How can i handle such questions? Can you please share any related discussion on the same topic?

Thanks in advance for answering the questions.

krrishwins · Answer

Can anybody help me with the above question?

generis · Answer

Hi ahabib , The sentence that you quote does not make sense. This is the correct version: The legacy of Ray Harryhausen, an innovative filmmaker, includes bringing realistic dinosaurs and a variety of other gigantic, threatening creatures to the big screen. I am utterly confused. I don't understand why you picked that example. I do not see a relative pronoun or any modifier reaching behind a prepositional phrase. Includes is a verb. It does not need to reach back over anything. It's the verb. an innovative filmmaker is an appositive for Harryhausen . The appositive does not have to reach over anything, either. I have been staring at this sentence for five minutes. I give up. You win. What are you talking about ?

Here is option D: The direct method of foreign-language instruction, which stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods , emphasizes teaching through the target language only . . . • which modifies the direct method —of foreign-language instruction, yes, but the main noun is the direct method . • you seem to be familiar with a common exception to the noun modifier "touch rule." -- Touch rule: a noun modifier should be as close as possible to what it modifies. If that rule always held, which would modify foreign-language instruction . -- The rule does not always hold. Which is a non-essential modifier whereas the prepositional phrase "of foreign-language instruction" is an essential modifier. Two modifiers of the same noun cannot be in the same place at the same time. -- Thus the essential modifier "trumps" the non-essential modifier. The prepositional phrase (essential modifier) is placed right after the noun and is followed by the non-essential modifier which. The modifier which often "reaches back" over the preposition to modify the "main" or "head" noun in a noun phrase. How do we know whether which modifies the main noun or the noun right before the comma? Context. Meaning. What is logical? How about comparing the direct method OF teaching foreign languages to traditional methods OF teaching foreign languages. For argument's sake, let's pretend that "taught" does not exist. Let's pretend that the subject IS the teaching of foreign language ("foreign-language instruction"). Does foreign-language instruction itself —literally, the mere fact of teaching students how to speak another language—stand in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods ? Or does a direct method of teaching stand in direct contrast to the traditional methods ? The word "method" is used twice. Use parallelism. In a contrast setup, the things being contrasted must be similar, or of like kind. Direct method and traditional methods are parallel. Foreign-language instruction and traditional method are not parallel. Highlighted portion: excellent! Now just stay with what you understand. The meaning shift is not just a shift. One noun makes the subject of the sentence wrong. Which one? The structure of sentence C does not allow the methods to be compared. When taught by the direct method, foreign-language instruction, in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods . . . The subject is foreign-language instruction. It is the implied subject of the when-clause. Foreign-language instruction stands in contrast to traditional grammar and translation methods . How? Why? Most importantly, why on earth is that interpretation better than this one: a direct method logically stands in contrast to traditional methods, as is the case in (D). Explain to me why option C is better than option D. Argue your case. -- "We must decide which of two nouns is better" is not an argument for the proposition that C is a better sentence than D. -- "We have two choices of subject" is not an argument that C is the viable one. -- "We must decide between two meanings" does not logically entail that the two choices are equally valid. Of course we have to decide which option is the more or the most logical. Logical predication underlies 40% of SC questions. We had better be ready to make such choices. BTW, are you arguing that option A determines intended meaning? I do not think you are arguing that position. If so, let me know and I will happily post a rejoinder to that argument, too. Sure. I rewrote the OE a bit. In this case, given the content and structure of the entire sentence, there is logical redundancy when we use instruction is taught. This redundancy is not the same as close proximity or past history . This redundancy is between verb and subject. That redundancy creates a situation in which people who are going to BE foreign language instructors ought to be immersed in the language so that they can learn the grammar of the language that they wish to teach. Stop. People who know a foreign language may not know how to teach it. But they are not going to learn how to teach a foreign language by themselves being immersed in the language in order to learn the grammar. Learning grammar does not teach you how to teach. Also, IF these people are learning to teach the language, is it logical to believe that they need immersion in this language and to learn grammar by way of immersion? These people are going to be teachers of a foreign language? No thanks. I'll pass. Try to avoid looking at each segment under a microscope. (Even that activity should lead you to D.) Step back. Consider the whole sentence. Put the logical pieces together. Which ideas fit? What makes you sincerely believe that C is as viable as D or that C is better than D? I have a really hard time answering questions in which I am guessing. Thank you for the kind words. You are welcome. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

generis · Answer

Hi krrishwins . I'm happy to try to help. (Getting an answer works better when you tag someone. There are hundreds of posts.

) Regarding the highlighted part? True, which cannot modify the preceding clause. But which can "reach back" over a prepositional phrase to get to its noun. In that same book, please read Position of Noun Modifiers , 6th ed. pp. 59 and 60. You should see a sentence about a box of nails. (That's all I recall, other than the page numbers.) An exception to the touch rule exists. (A few exceptions exist.) I explained the exception involving "which" and prepositional phrases in the post immediately above, HERE . Another resource is SC Tips and Tricks, which you can find HERE. dave13 distilled an enormous amount of information about SC. I'd read the whole topic thread. On that SC Tips topic thread, is this post, here which contains a creative sentence that he drafted in order to test the "which" rule exception. Read that short post first. I responded, discussing why which does not have to modify the immediately preceding noun. I wrote, A major exception to the "touch" rule: an essential modifier can separate which and its noun referent. That statement and its explanation can be found here, in this post. . If you would like to tag someone, type the @ symbol and the person's username. No spaces. Leave one space after the username. It may take us time to get to you. Questions that are specific and easy to understand (as yours is, +1

) are a lot easier to deal with. I hope that helps.

generis · Answer

thangvietnam  , you found the most important issue. 
Well done. +1

ahabib · Answer

The large, bolded portion answers my question. I treated the appositive the same way I deal with modifiers: by expecting it to modify the noun before the preposition. I was looking for the modifier to modify "The Legacy".

That's solved, so if you're still unsure what's making me confused I don't think it matters much because you answered my question (THANK YOU!)

As for the rest.. Yes you're right.. After re-reading the sentence and being more clear headed, (D) definitely makes more sense than (C)

Thanks again, I'd kudos you 10x if I could

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.

Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standi

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

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Foreign-language instruction, when taught by the direct method, standi

Prep Toolkit

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