OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONProject SC Butler: Day 149 Sentence Correction (SC1)
• Meaning?A United Nations law governs ownership of the Arctic Ocean and gives Arctic nations possession of an economic zone in the Arctic ocean that is theirs alone and that extends 200 nautical miles from their shores.THE PROMPTQuote:
Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which had provided Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from land.
THE OPTIONSOwnership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea,
which had provided Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from land.
Quote:
A) Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which had provided Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from land.
• Option A contains only one error:
had provided-- Did the law stop providing governance? No.
Ownership . . . IS governed.Past perfect is illogical and unwarranted.
-- Past perfect requires at least one event written in simple past tense or a time marker that creates the same effect.
No event is in simple past tense, and no time marker exists. Past perfect is ungrammatical.
Eliminate A.
Quote:
B) Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which provides Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone to extend 200 nautical miles from land.
• The infinitive
to extend could mean either
in order to extend or
that will extend-- Neither meaning makes sense.
-- Not all infinitives are infinitives of purpose:
Ammonia and chlorine combine to form a deadly gas.
• Nothing is wrong with
which.--
which typically modifies a preceding noun, true—but
which can modify the immediately preceding noun or the
main noun in a noun phrase.
Noun: LAW (+ prepositional phrase of the Sea).
--
which is allowed to "reach over" the prepositional phrase to get to its noun.
The prepositional phrase is an essential modifier and cannot be placed elsewhere.
Essential modifiers trump nonessential modifiers.
So we place [comma + which] right after the prepositional phrase.
-- Essential? Too close to call. In the very few questions of late in which GMAC tests whether a clause is essential, the material in question is obviously essential.
I would not eliminate this answer on the basis that the second part of this sentence is essential.
The appositive in (C) is not essential. Now what?
Eliminate B
C) Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea,
a treatise that provides Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from land.
• the verb
provides correctly conveys that the Act is still in force. (The non-underlined portion of the sentence says, "Ownership . . . IS.")
• the present participle
extending properly and sensibly modifies
exclusive economic zone•
a treatise that . . . is an appositive that renames or re-describes the noun.
Quote:
D) Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, a treatise provided Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone that extends 200 nautical miles from land.
[/quote]
•
provided is past tense. That tense is incorrect. The law is still in force.
• For this sentence to be logical, the word
that needs to be inserted after "a treatise."
Eliminate D
Quote:
E) Ownership of the Arctic is governed by the 1958 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which provides Arctic nations with an exclusive economic zone of extension 200 nautical miles from land.
•
which is okay
• a economic
zone of extension is not idiomatic. It doesn't make any sense.
If you are not sure, compare this answer to (C). Option C wins.
The correct answer is CCOMMENTStinytiger ,
ccheryn , and
Prasannathawait , welcome to SC Butler.
SAURAV700 , I am happy that SC Butler was the arena in which a post pushed you over the "Manager" threshold.
Some of these explanations are excellent. Others are incomplete. Just below the question there is always a reminder post in which I state that correct answers with good explanations get kudos.
(Do you all realize that I used to award
one kudos to the winner? And that I required people to write the meaning of the sentence?)
I am glad to see lots of perspectives and input.
I have corrected a few urban legends here and there. This is the place to clear them up.
No explanation? No kudos. In fact, I may delete your post.
If your answer barely explains, no kudos.
I will award kudos to answers whose authors explained well. Nice work!