Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants

Hello, gmatyodha. Since I believe the community would benefit from a more thorough treatment of each of the answers above, I will supply my thoughts on this question. How about we go in for a closer look?


Analysis: Whenever you have a restrictive use of an appositive, a word or phrase that defines a noun and in this case precedes the proper noun, you may or may not see the restrictive article the. That is, you could write, [The] legendary boxer Muhammed Ali died a few years ago. The sentence is fine with or without the article the because the reader understands that there was only one such legendary boxer named Muhammed Ali.

In this sentence, we have a compound subject in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Since the restrictive appositive is placed before each name, two correct versions can be generated:

1) Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants...
2) The Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants...

The voice is active, and the subject-verb agreement is there. This option works well. Green light.


Analysis: Now the appositive is placed after the noun it is modifying, and if the appositive comes second, whether restrictive or non-restrictive, you need to use double punctuation to contain it. The correct version of this part of the sentence would read, Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, and Steve Jobs, the Apple founder, are giants.... If you can eliminate anything on grammatical grounds, then it is wise to do so. Red light.


Analysis: Does named add anything in the way of clarity to the appositive? Likewise, does known add anything in the way of clarity to giants, particularly in light of the non-underlined part of the sentence that mentions people from all walks of life as recognizing the contributions of these tech giants? I would say not. The earlier version in (A) was a more concise version, so although there is nothing grammatically wrong with this option, it is a lesser choice than its counterpart. Red light.


Analysis: This is an interesting one, a case in which the proper noun follows the appositive but is roped off by double commas. Please note that such a usage is not always incorrect, but it is incorrect if the appositive is restrictive. Since the article used is the, the reader is meant to understand that there was one and only one founder of each company in this sentence. If the article said a instead, then Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would be understood to have contributed as part of a duo or team of founders instead: A Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, and an Apple founder, Steve Jobs, are giants.... Since the article used is the, we can eliminate this one on grammatical grounds. Subtle, but a lesson worth learning. Red light.


Analysis: Nothing is wrong with the punctuation here. Since the appositives follow their respective nouns, again, whether the appositive is restrictive or not, the phrase needs to be surrounded by some sort of punctuation: commas, em dashes (--), or parentheses. The problem here is the verb tense. Why invoke the past perfect tense? Are we to understand that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have passed on? Even then, a simple were would do in place of had been. You use the past perfect tense to indicate a prior action when a past tense has already been used in the sentence. This particular sentence has no need to reach back further into the past. Red light.

I hope that helps clarify your understanding of the question. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

the phrases "the Microsoft founder" and "the Apple founder" are placed after the proper nouns. we need commas to set off the modifying phrases. Commas do not appear

this question is the case of proper noun and common noun here founder is the common noun which cannot be separated from proper noun (name) by comma as in choice d

so b, d, ruled out ,e is wrong change the original tense making it awkward and c is bit wordy


kudos please if you like the explanations

Whats the difference between A and B.
A-Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants

Expanded A.
Founder of Microsoft Bill Gates and founder of Apple Steve Jobs are giants

B-Bill Gates the Microsoft founder and Steve Jobs the Apple founder are giants

Expanded B.
Bill Gates founder of the Microsoft and Steve Jobs founder of the Apple are giants

+1

aAha I learned something new today. I will keep this concept in mind.

Thanks for sharing this question

B/W what's the source of this question.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants of the digital age, their contributions recognized by people from all walks of life

A-Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants

B-Bill Gates the Microsoft founder and Steve Jobs the Apple founder are giants

C-The Microsoft founder named Bill Gates and the Apple founder named Steve Jobs are known giants

D-The Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, and the Apple founder, Steve Jobs, are giants

E-Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, and Steve Jobs, the Apple founder, had been giants

and kudos if you like the question

Merged similar topic

Use the search button before to post a question

Thanks
_________________

When you narrowed down to A/D ...

D --> Name of founders Bill gates/steve jobs in comma is wrong ...As information is essential We can not put them into comma's,
Usage of comma make sentence structure wise wrong ....

Therefore Left with A although took 2.52 Min

LS

+ 1 for question
+1 for explaination.

learned something new today.

Tx

I don't think you need "The" in front of Microsoft and Apple

You could say, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, are ...

This is how I narrow down to (A)

souvik101990,abhimahna,gmatNinja Can you please help me understand this construction,I got it wrong and marked D since i thought the non essential information is surrounded by commas in it .Please correct my understanding.

How the construction in A works need some insight.

A small aside to this topic.

Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were only co-founders of their companies.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen jointly founded Microsoft in the mid-’70s. Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne founded Apple Inc around the same time. Therefore, choices saying The founder is not appropriate in this topic. Perhaps this is the reason for choosing A, which doesn't use the definite article as the best of the lot.
However, this is a GMAT SC question and therefore there are more important things than factuality, I tentatively suppose.
_________________

Hello, daagh. I am glad our paths have finally crossed. I enjoy reading your posts on finer grammatical issues, and you have plenty of them. I was aware of the group of founders of each company, although I will confess to having forgotten Ronald Wayne. I suppose that in the interest of historical accuracy, I could have said, The one and only Bill Gates who helped found Microsoft... but I guess I just did not see the need. As you know, the GMAT™ does not require background knowledge to answer its questions, so I was just sticking with the material on the screen.

I appreciate the extra info, though. I will have to remember to add Wayne to the conversation if and when the topic comes up in real life.

Cheers,
Andrew
_________________

@AndrewN

Analysis: Nothing is wrong with the punctuation here. Since the appositives follow their respective nouns, again, whether the appositive is restrictive or not, the phrase needs to be surrounded by some sort of punctuation: commas, em dashes (--), or parentheses. The problem here is the verb tense. Why invoke the past perfect tense? Are we to understand that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have passed on? Even then, a simple were would do in place of had been. You use the past perfect tense to indicate a prior action when a past tense has already been used in the sentence. This particular sentence has no need to reach back further into the past. Red light.

I hope that helps clarify your understanding of the question. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew[/quote]

If we compare D with E, the position of apostrophes is reversing, but in essence the meaning seems similar : The Microsoft/Apple founder --> BlahBlah.
So what actually is difference there between D and E ?
Is there "the" implied in E and the sentence is : [The] Bill Gates, The Microsoft Founder ??

No, penco, you do not introduce a person by name with an article, so the Bill Gates is neither implied nor correct. The difference between (D) and (E) is at the end in how the verb is conjugated: are is fine, had been is not, as discussed in my earlier post. Do not get so caught up in the placement of the appositives that you miss an easier and more often tested point in proper verb conjugation. (D) and (E) are essentially the same until the last few words, even if (D) could be better expressed, more concisely expressed, as (A).

- Andrew
_________________

Hi experts,

I'm a little unclear on this question. Without outside knowledge, you cannot be certain that there is more than one founder; therefore, I immediately took out A, B, and C. How can we be so sure that we can restrictively modify Microsoft founder and Apple founder?

So, in Essence,
if the construction is: A Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, and An Apple founder, Steve Jobs, ....
Bill Gates would be essentially called as an appositive as it would be restricting the extent of the following Noun Phrase: A Microsoft Founder ?

Hello, penco. Check out this article on GrammarBook and let me know if the second example does not clarify the matter. It all has to do with whether the information, proper noun or no, is considered essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Happy reading.

- Andrew
_________________

Thanks AndrewN for the thorough explanation. However, I am still falling to understand why D is incorrect.
Could you guide me here?