In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, te

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.


(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and

(B) laws, which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is

(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and

(D) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is

(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is

The biggest thing that jumps out at me here is the word "and." Something has to be parallel with the phrase that follows the word "and." And I think we're in good shape: "... one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics." Cool, "first made in 1845" and "now included in virtually every textbook" both modify "an observation about electric current" -- and that makes perfect sense.

So let's keep (A).


(E) isn't a total disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).

For starters, I'm not sure why we would say something like "...one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current..." First, there's no good reason to emphasize the past tense in this case: sure, the observation was first made in the past, but there's no good reason to suggest that the law itself somehow existed only in the past -- and that's exactly what seems to be happening in (A). Second, the phrase "one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current" suggests that Kirchoff had other laws that were NOT about electric current, and we have no idea if that's actually the case.

The other problem is the placement of the modifier "first made in 1845." This is subtle and annoying, but because "first made in 1845" is surrounded by commas (an appositive phrase, if you like grammar jargon), it seems to modify ONLY the preceding noun, "electric current." So if we think about the sentence strictly and literally, it's saying that electric current was first made in 1845, and that's really not what the sentence is trying to say -- it's trying to say that the observation was first made in 1845, not the electric current itself.

So (E) can be eliminated, and (A) is the best we can do.

unraveled The trouble is that you are using grammar rules to demonstrate that the sentence can be read as a grammatical English sentence (it can!) without considering the author's intended meaning. We don't have to go to the second meaning you suggest to see that E doesn't give us what we want. Take a look at my post on the previous page to see my take on the meaning troubles that E produces. They are a bit subtle, and not so outrageous as saying that a person is in a book, but they are still problematic enough to make E invalid.

It's quite normal for a noun modifier to apply to an entire noun phrase, rather than just the last noun in the phrase, as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous. This can include skipping over a prepositional modifier to apply to the preceding noun. In this case, we can be certain that electric current wasn't first made in 1845, so there's no danger of misunderstanding.

Hmm, I wouldn't call that a rule at all--it's a tendency that one observer has noted. There are many cases in which I wouldn't expect to see this followed with "that." A simpler rule of thumb is that we should repeat "that" (or "which," or any other structuring word) when needed to clarify the meaning. So no, I wouldn't expect this to hold with B or even E. We could say "which was X and is Y" as long as our intended meaning is clear. However, we'd need a justification for the shift in tense (do I really need the "was"?) and we would of course have to ditch "it" to have parallel verbs.

What stands out to me most about E is how badly it garbles the meaning. First, the restrictive modifier (that) makes it appear that we are trying to narrow down which SET of Kirchoff's laws we are dealing with: "one of K's laws THAT was an observation." Even if it turns out that K had many such observations among his laws, there's no reason to contrast these from any others right now. Then we have the odd use of commas to set off "first made in 1845" from the rest. This sounds like the "first" is going to be contrasted with some later action, but then all we get is "and is now included," which would have to be parallel with the earlier "was an observation." As we've gotten into above, this doesn't work here, even if there's no blanket rule about switching tenses, but even if it worked perfectly, it would leave that "first made" modifier hanging by itself to no purpose.

The biggest thing that jumps out at me here is the word "and." Something has to be parallel with the phrase that follows the word "and." And I think we're in good shape: "... one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics." Cool, "first made in 1845" and "now included in virtually every textbook" both modify "an observation about electric current" -- and that makes perfect sense.

So let's keep (A).

B states that laws which was an observation; laws is plural and was is singular . Secondly, the pronoun it has no antecedent. Does it refer to the observation or one of the laws or the patent or what? Therefore B is ruled out

GMATNinja
Couple of questions here
1. The phrase an observation about electric current first made in 1845, here is it the observation that was made in 1845 or the current that was made in 1845 ? Isn't there an ambiguity here ? May be current is not made but generated !!
2. Regarding the parallel phrases which are modifying one of Kirchoff's laws -> Isn't it the case that both the phrases independently modify the noun one of Kirchoff's laws? Rather both first made in 1845 and now included.... modifying an observation about electric current ?
One of Kirchoff's laws
->The law is an observation about electric current first made in 1845
->The law is is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

Please correct me if I am totally screwing here

The other problem is the placement of the modifier "first made in 1845." This is subtle and annoying, but because "first made in 1845" is surrounded by commas (an appositive phrase, if you like grammar jargon), it seems to modify ONLY the preceding noun, "electric current." So if we think about the sentence strictly and literally, it's saying that electric current was first made in 1845, and that's really not what the sentence is trying to say -- it's trying to say that the observation was first made in 1845, not the electric current itself.

The biggest thing that jumps out at me here is the word "and." Something has to be parallel with the phrase that follows the word "and." And I think we're in good shape: "... one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics." Cool, "first made in 1845" and "now included in virtually every textbook" both modify "an observation about electric current" -- and that makes perfect sense.

So let's keep (A).


The "which" jumps out at me first in (B): "which was an observation..." modifies "one of Kirchoff's laws." That's OK, though we probably don't really even need the phrase "which was." It's not a big deal, but (A) is more succinct because it skips those extra couple of words. That's not a definite error, but it's a mild reason to prefer (A) over (B).

The bigger problem is the parallelism. Following the "and", we have a brand-new clause: "it is now included in virtually every textbook..." But I don't think that the clause is logically parallel to anything. And more importantly: there's no good reason to start a brand-new clause here, partly because we're just trying to describe the observation, so a simple modifier would be cleaner than a brand-new clause.

So (B) isn't a complete disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).


This is a classic comma splice:

• Independent clause #1: "In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws..."
• Independent clause #2: "...it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

Those two independent clauses are separated by only a comma, and that's not cool. (Commas and comma splices are very briefly discussed in this YouTube video on GMAT punctuation if you're curious to learn more about that crap.) So we can eliminate (C).


(D) has basically the same comma splice problem as (C):

• Independent clause #1: "In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws..."
• Independent clause #2: "...it is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

So (D) is out, too.


(E) isn't a total disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).

For starters, I'm not sure why we would say something like "...one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current..." First, there's no good reason to emphasize the past tense in this case: sure, the observation was first made in the past, but there's no good reason to suggest that the law itself somehow existed only in the past -- and that's exactly what seems to be happening in (A). Second, the phrase "one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current" suggests that Kirchoff had other laws that were NOT about electric current, and we have no idea if that's actually the case.

The other problem is the placement of the modifier "first made in 1845." This is subtle and annoying, but because "first made in 1845" is surrounded by commas (an appositive phrase, if you like grammar jargon), it seems to modify ONLY the preceding noun, "electric current." So if we think about the sentence strictly and literally, it's saying that electric current was first made in 1845, and that's really not what the sentence is trying to say -- it's trying to say that the observation was first made in 1845, not the electric current itself.

So (E) can be eliminated, and (A) is the best we can do.

How do we know if in the given sentence the intended reference of "first made in 1845" is for "observation" or "electric current"?

The appositive in the given sentence (or the correct sentence): "an observation about electric current first made in 1845"

"first made in 1845" is immediately following the "electric current". Should "electric current" not be the correct referent for "first made in 1845" as per this?

Thank you Brian123. I think I got your point. But just to confirm:

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and
Here, "first made in 1845" modifies "observation"
And, thus it is correct.

(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is
Here, "first made in 1845" modifies "electric current".
And, thus it is incorrect.

My takeaway: When a modifier is separated by comma (as in Option E), the modifier always modifies the immediate preceding noun. Whereas, when there is no comma (as in Option A), it can modify a noun need not necessarily be immediately preceding to it. Hope my understanding is correct here?

Hello GMATNinja, EXPERTS

Thanks for the explanation.

Question - Can we eliminate options B and C just because of their emphasis on the past tense -was- similar to what you have mentioned for option E?

The biggest thing that jumps out at me here is the word "and." Something has to be parallel with the phrase that follows the word "and." And I think we're in good shape: "... one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics." Cool, "first made in 1845" and "now included in virtually every textbook" both modify "an observation about electric current" -- and that makes perfect sense.

So let's keep (A).


The "which" jumps out at me first in (B): "which was an observation..." modifies "one of Kirchoff's laws." That's OK, though we probably don't really even need the phrase "which was." It's not a big deal, but (A) is more succinct because it skips those extra couple of words. That's not a definite error, but it's a mild reason to prefer (A) over (B).

The bigger problem is the parallelism. Following the "and", we have a brand-new clause: "it is now included in virtually every textbook..." But I don't think that the clause is logically parallel to anything. And more importantly: there's no good reason to start a brand-new clause here, partly because we're just trying to describe the observation, so a simple modifier would be cleaner than a brand-new clause.

So (B) isn't a complete disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).


This is a classic comma splice:

• Independent clause #1: "In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws..."
• Independent clause #2: "...it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

Those two independent clauses are separated by only a comma, and that's not cool. (Commas and comma splices are very briefly discussed in this YouTube video on GMAT punctuation if you're curious to learn more about that crap.) So we can eliminate (C).


(D) has basically the same comma splice problem as (C):

• Independent clause #1: "In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws..."
• Independent clause #2: "...it is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

So (D) is out, too.


(E) isn't a total disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).

For starters, I'm not sure why we would say something like "...one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current..." First, there's no good reason to emphasize the past tense in this case: sure, the observation was first made in the past, but there's no good reason to suggest that the law itself somehow existed only in the past -- and that's exactly what seems to be happening in (A). Second, the phrase "one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current" suggests that Kirchoff had other laws that were NOT about electric current, and we have no idea if that's actually the case.

The other problem is the placement of the modifier "first made in 1845." This is subtle and annoying, but because "first made in 1845" is surrounded by commas (an appositive phrase, if you like grammar jargon), it seems to modify ONLY the preceding noun, "electric current." So if we think about the sentence strictly and literally, it's saying that electric current was first made in 1845, and that's really not what the sentence is trying to say -- it's trying to say that the observation was first made in 1845, not the electric current itself.

So (E) can be eliminated, and (A) is the best we can do.

GMATNinja

I am not sure I understand why D is wrong . . . could you please clarify?!

In 1995 Richard Stallman testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

GMATNinja

I was skeptical with option A because of the phrase 'and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.'


I was searching for the option that contains and "is" now included.... as now (meaning present) and included (past tense).

Where did I go wrong here?
I am unable to justify that a past tense is used for the word "now".

Request to give some insights.