Known to its considerable opposition as "Seward's Folly", the purchase

VeritasKarishma

Hi Karishma! Do you mind looking at my response above and clarify my confusion? Thanks!

I'd appreciate it if you could let me know what the "touch rule" is. That will help me better answer your question (I interpreted your "please confirm that the touch rule does not apply when the noun is followed by prepositional phrase" question as "please confirm that a which can refer to a noun that is not literally 'touching' the which"). Meanwhile, to get an idea of how messy relative pronouns can get, you could take a look at this post.

Generally speaking, if there are multiple nouns before a relative pronoun in an option, we may need to take that option out for ambiguity (after checking the other options). That does not mean, however, that there is a "rule" restricting what the which can refer to. If you are asking whether I am sure about that, I am.
_________________

Thanks for the link! I understand that it is okay to reach behind the prepositional, given that there is compelling reason to do so.
In terms of this question, is there sufficient reason to assume that 'the purchase' gave US land? I understand that the OA is the most correct answer (through POE), but I don't think I can automatically justify the reach-over.

Well, for what it's worth (since it seems to be an unofficial question), one could argue that the purchase was that of Louisiana territory, and this territory provided the United States with new land, a strategic military position, and control of the entire Mississippi River valley.

For example, it would be perfectly find to say that US purchased Alaska and Alaska gave US, access to vast oil reserves (the purchase gave US, access to vast oil reserves would be fine as well).
_________________

"which provided the United States with new land, a strategic military position, and control of the entire Mississippi River valley." is a noun modifier modifying "that (purchase)".
The noun modifier NEED NOT modify the noun right before it. It can modify a main noun before the noun of the propositional phrase.

Note that Louisiana territory did not provide new land etc. The "purchase" provided new land etc. But you need to specify the purchase so it is essential to say "purchase of Louisiana territory". The which modifier will come after that though it refers to purchase. So you may want to have the modifier sticking to the noun but it may not always be possible. It is acceptable for it to be a bit away.

Look at the logic of the sentence to see what makes sense. There are not many non-negotiable "rules" and hence we always look for the "best option".

Clarifying a few points:

Double Negatives which actually introduces redundancy is allowed in GMAT? Basically which takes priority?

Correct comparison + Modifier aspect or the above?

Purchase of Alaska was like the purchase of Louisiana - so some kind of comparison clause marker is required

Next

If comparing purchase - that's a verb not a noun ...

But then move on

Which provided should be the correct modifier as "for providing" does not make much modifier sense.

Now when down to the answer choices, it will be evident that none of them provides all of the correct options in order.

Kindly if anyone knows the rules for which takes precedence in choosing an answer as asked before, that will be quite nice...
I guess all the questions asked above are also pointing in essence to the same question.

Dear AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY DmitryFarber IanStewart MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasPrepBrian,

(D) like that of the Louisiana territory for providing
Q1. In choice D., what's wrong with "for providing" ?

(A) not unlike that of the Louisiana territory, which provided
Q2. In choice A., why isn't there ambiguity what "which" refers to?
IMO, "which" can refer to "that" or the "Louisiana territory"
Here, the closest noun of the right type to fit the relative pronoun is "Louisiana territory".

Second question first: "which" refers to the closest noun of the right type, which is "the Louisiana territory." This is totally unambiguous and therefore fine. The territory DID do all of those things described by the subsequent modifier. (It's purchase did too, and they're almost one and the same in this regard, so it would sort of be fine either way; there would be no meaningful ambiguity even if the relative pronoun were not totally fixed on the territory.)

First question second: "for providing" uses a prepositional phrase to create the modifier (with "for"). Prepositional phrases are flexible modifiers, so this does not have to modify "the Louisiana territory," and in fact it appears, as I see it, to describe the comparison. "[This thing] was like [that thing] for..." seems to be trying to tell me how the two things were alike. But of course the modifier that follows does not correctly describe the comparison -- the purchase of Alaska did not provide the United States with "control of the entire Mississippi River valley." And this is true even if you know nothing of geography (the Mississippi River goes nowhere near Alaska), because it would be quite implausible for both purchases to provide "control of the entire Mississippi River valley." After all, if you got control from the first purchase, you would already have had control when you made the second purchase, and it would not make sense for the second purchase to provide that same control that you already have. So the modifier is illogical, whether you know anything about geography or not.
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma,

Thank you for your explanation. I agree that it would be more logical for 'which' to refer to the 'purchase'.
Would you please explain why D is wrong? Is it because of an ambiguity error with 'for providing'?

I wonder whether "not unlike" is a common usage in English

I don't know if it's exactly "common," but at least it's... not uncommon. Basically, it pops up from time to time. There are 27.7 million Google search results for "not unlike." (And 46.3 million more for "not uncommon." And so forth.)

The bigger point is that we aren't meant to know. We're just meant to recognize that it's none of our business, and then avoid that decision entirely.
_________________

Thanks Anthony! Interesting figures from Google)

Yes, "which provided" is clear and precise, while "for providing" is not. Hence (A) is better.

Shouldn't unlike be followed by a noun? but is "that of the noun" as used here, correct?
GMATNinja

Manoj1998

Here like is followed by a pronoun phrase: that of X (that is a pronoun here).
_________________

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.
_________________