Far from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distin

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



Needless to say, verb construction underlies the question.
This verb construction is called "passive reporting structure, " which I explain after the POE.
Passive reporting structure requires us to pay attention to the verb tenses for both the reported event and the time of the act of reporting.

THE PROMPT


THE OPTIONS


• historians of today can know something in the present about something in the past.
The problem does not lie with are known.
The problem is the infinitive, which is in the simple form to douse
• are known to douse means that the Babylonians more than 2,000 years ago are now known to still be dousing lettuce with oil and vinegar. Nonsense.
Eliminate A


• This structure works and means: historians know that the Babylonians doused lettuce with oil and vinegar
KEEP


• Do not mistake this phrasing for "Babylonians were known to," which = we know that Babylonians did XYZ
• "were knowing" is not the same as above and is NOT a correct verb phrase.
-- It doesn't mean anything.
-- In English we do not say "were knowing" as a verb phrase.
The ancient pyramid builders were knowing about astronomy.
Corrected: The ancient pyramid builders knew about astronomy.
• Babylonians were knowing = the Babylonians in the past continuously were knowing (NO) that they should douse lettuce with oil and vinegar
Even that attempt to translate a nonsense verb is not accurate. They either knew or did not know.
We do not say are knowing, either. This is wrong: I am knowing a lot about geometry. (OUCH.)
Eliminate C


• The Babylonians are not still in existence. We are not talking about a group of people who live now.
• When we use the present tense verb have in the present perfect have been known, AND couple it with simple infinitive TO DOUSE, we incorrectly indicate that the Babylonians are still alive and on occasion, [have been known to] do XYZ.
• The politician and his cronies have been known to befriend mortal enemies of the nation.
Are the politician and his cronies dead? No.
• The Babylonians are neither still alive nor dousing their lettuce with vinegar and oil.
Eliminate D


• WHO creates a fragment. The second part of the sentence lacks a verb
-- [T]he Babylonians [who were known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago] _____ (WHAT)?
-- These Babylonians (who were known to do XYZ) did WHAT?
• Take note: GMAC frequently sets this particular "fragment trap." What is "this fragment trap"?
In short, the trap consists of a relative clause that follows a subject and "eats up" the only available verb.
That is:
A subject [Babylonians] will be followed by a relative clause with a pronoun (who, that, or which) and a verb.
There will be a subject. (The Babylonians)
That subject will be followed by a relative clause, usually essential or restrictive (i.e., who or that and not usually comma + which).
-- the relative pronoun will be WHO, THAT, or which. In this case, WHO refers to and restrictively defines Babylonians.
-- the relative clause will contain a verb. [were known to douse].
-- But no second verb exists for the subject itself [the Babylonians] to take.
The subject needs its own verb because the relative clause merely describes the Babylonians and "eats up" the one verb that exists.
Eliminate E

The answer is B

ANALYSIS

• PASSIVE REPORTING STRUCTURE

This question tests something called a passive [voice] reporting structure, which GMAC tests on occasion. (Rarely, although I have seen it used quite often in hard RC passages.)

Sometimes we want to report information even when
(1) we are not completely sure whether it is true,
(2) the source doesn't really matter,
(3) we do not know the source, or
(4) we want to distance ourselves from the source.
In essence we want to avoid mentioning the general agents who know (we, everyone, they, the people).

• There are TWO STRUCTURES to use with passive reporting verbs

We have two structures we can use with passive reporting verbs

Structure #1 IT + reporting verb + THAT clause
(Not applicable to our question. I have not seen official questions test this one, though I could be mistaken, so information about this kind is in the footnote.)

and

Structure #2 to achieve passive voice with reporting verb:
SUBJECT + reporting verb + to-infinitive ← ← THIS ONE APPLIES

We use these passive reporting structures to talk about facts or to use a formal style while reporting information. (Newscasters often use it.)
As I mentioned, we use it to distance ourselves from the information. ("Someone else said this first, not I." Or "The source isn't important. The fact is.")

• Passive reporting structure #2
Subject + passive reporting verb + to-infinitive (applies to this question)

This structure starts with the subject of the reported clause, which is followed by the passive reporting verb and by the to-infinitive form of the verb in the reported clause.
That description sounds very abstract. Examples help. Keep reading.

The easy case: The reported event is in the present and the reporting of the event is in the present. (NOT this question)
Watch how the structure changes (described above) from what is meant (in parentheses) to how the information gets reported.

Corinne is known to like sterling silver or platinum jewelry.
(Everyone knows that Corinne likes sterling silver or platinum jewelry.)

Human beings are known to prefer sweet things.
(Anthropologists know that human beings tend to prefer sweet things.)

• The difficult part of the passive reporting structure: which verb tenses do we use?

The type of to-infinitive we use depends on the temporal relationship between the action of reporting and the reported event.

In general, we must cope with two situations, the first of which does not apply to this question so I will put its examples in a footnote.

(1) the reported event and the reporting OF the event happen at the same time. (Not applicable to this question.)
Use the simple to-infinitive.*

(2) The reported event happens before the reporting of the event. (The situation in this question)

subject + passive reporting verb + to-infinitive (perfect tense)

If the reported event happens before the reporting of the event, we use
(1) the present tense for the reporting verb, and
(2) the perfect to-infinitive
-- if reporting is now but event was in the past, use present perfect infinitive
-- if the reporting happened in the past and the event happened before the reporting, use past perfect infinitive. An example is in the footnote.

This question: The reporting of the event happens in the present but the reported event happens [happened] in the past.
Subject + reporting verb + to-infinitive (present perfect).
Examples:

Corinne is known never to have owned gaudy jewelry.
(Everyone knows that Corinne never owned gaudy jewelry.)
(Everyone knows that Corinne had never owned gaudy jewelry.)

The Babylonians are known to have doused their lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.
(Generic "THEY" know that the Babylonians doused their lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.)

This passive reporting structure is described in a very accessible way on these pages (in order): here, #1, (passive voice with reporting verbs); here, #2 (passive voice reporting verb, simultaneous event); and here, #3 (passive voice reporting verb, reporting an earlier event).

Alternatively, a shorter and very good site comes from what I think is a Hungarian source (maybe Estonian?) —a source whose author really understands this structure.
You can find that site HERE.

Unless you want a 700 or better, ignore those pages.

Takeaways:
Understand how this question works -- specifically, understand why the incorrect options are incorrect.
It is now known [and can be reported as a fact] that Babylonians who are no longer in existence [a fact derived from the context of the sentence] doused their lettuce with vinegar and oil more than 2,000 years ago.

That structure changes by way of passive reporting verb convention to the sentence in correct answer B:
[T]he Babylonians [i]are known to have doused lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.[/i]
-- Are known = the reporting is happening now and the info is generally known by a "they" or an "everyone."

-- To have doused = present perfect to-infinitive indicates that at some point beginning and ending in the past, Babylonians doused their lettuce with vinegar and oil.

If you have questions about the passive reporting structure, please read the linked pages.
Still have questions? Make them specific, tag me, and I will be happy to try to help.
Please do not go wandering on the web. Most of the attempts to teach this subject that I found were of poor quality.
I've given you two sources that I am sure are accurate.

COMMENTS

Sanjay7392 , welcome to SC Butler.

I see a couple of posters I have not seen for awhile—glad you posted.

As always, I am glad to see veterans and semi-veterans.

The efforts to understand and explain are good.
Your reasoning may have taken a wrong turn, but the reasoning itself rangers from pretty good to very good.
People who reasoned themselves to the correct answer are almost correct in their reasoning.

A few subjects in SC are not all that hard, but they are somewhat rare and typically very hard to teach.
Passive reporting verb structure is rather common in formal English, occasionally tested by GMAC, and very hard to teach, imo.

I hope you all benefit from being exposed to the structure; you will see it again in business school and in business when you deal with attorneys (I would know) or with consultants (I would know about that, too).

You will also see this structure in academic writing, including in these often inexact "sciences" or subject areas in business school:
human resource management, management science, international business, marketing, organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and public relations. Those are a few examples whose material by definition does not lend itself to incontrovertible findings.

I am glad to see everyone wrestling with the material.

I like curiosity. I like tenacity. And I like courage. Kudos to all.



** This footnote contains examples that do not apply to this sentence but that make the structure that does apply to this sentence a little clearer. Examples help.

(1) IT + passive reporting verb + that-clause (from above, not our situation)
In this structure, we shift from a generalized "everybody" + active reporting verb
to
IT + passive reporting verb
The word IT replaces the generalized "everyone," and the active reporting verb is changed to the passive reporting verb.

Everyone knows that Corinne likes sterling silver or platinum jewelry.
It is known that Corinne likes sterling silver or platinum jewelry.

****
These examples go with the second structure that is used in this question, but the examples are in time frames different from those in this question.
(2) Second structure = subject + passive reporting verb + to-infinitive
Note the different kinds of to-infinitive structures used

(2A) (simultaneous timing, both are in the present) the reported event and the reporting OF the event happen at the same time.
Use the simple present to-infinitive.

subject + passive reporting verb + to-infinitive (simple)

Corinne is known to like sterling silver or platinum jewelry.
(Everyone knows that Corinne likes sterling silver or platinum jewelry.)

(2B) (simultaneous timing, both are in the past) reported event and the reporting OF the event both happen in the PAST (simple infinitive)

Corinne was known to like sterling silver or platinum jewelry.
(Everyone knew that Corinne liked sterling silver or platinum jewelry.)

(2C) (different timing, different times in the past) Reporting in the past, reported event in an earlier past (use past perfect infinitive)
subject + passive reporting verb + to-infinitive (past perfect infinitive)

Corinne was known to have liked sterling silver and platinum jewelry.
(Everyone knew that Corinne had liked sterling silver and platinum jewelry.)

Hi,
IMO B.
History...and ....more than 2000 years ago.... set the context of the sentence in past.
So use of present in A is incorrect.
B uses simple past form of douse and is indeed correct. Babylonians doused lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago and they are still known for doing so. Correct
C changes the meaning of the original sentence. Using C would mean that Babylonians were learning to douse lettuce with oil... Incorrect.
D also changes the meaning. Present perfect is used when an action starts in the past and its affect or the action itself continues. This is clearly not the case here....more than 2000 years ago. Incorrect
E uses a pronoun who which makes the rest of the sentence a modifier modifying Babylonians, leaving sentence a run-on. Incorrect.
_________________

IMO - B

A) Babylonians "are known to douse" is incorrect as this part of the sentence then becomes present tense. Babylonians dont douse oil on lettuce now. They did it once upon a time.
B) "are known to have doused" - portrays the right meaning - we know now that Babylonians doused oil on lettuce during their period.
c) "Were knowing to douse" - Changes the meaning - as if dousing is an art mastered by Babylonians.
d) "Have been known to douse" - alters the meaning and makes it out of sync with first part of the sentence - as if Babylonians have been dousing oil on lettuce until now.
e) the word "who" incorrectly used. It could mean that the "Romans ate greens mixed with dressing and Babylonians" - which is ridiculous

Far from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distinguished history: food historians claim that the Romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.

The romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians..... These two clause must be parallel.

The baby-loins are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar for more than 2000 years. ‘More than 2000 years’ - this indicates that present perfect must be use here, since it’s the event that happened in the past but still continued to happen.

So the only choice with present perfect tense is choice D. ‘Have been known to douse’

Posted from my mobile device

IMO B

Far from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distinguished history: food historians claim that the Romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.

A) are known to douse
They dont still douse, hence use of present tense is incorrect

B) are known to have doused
Looks ok

C) were knowing to douse
"were knowing to" is unidiomatic

D) have been known to douse
They are still known to douse, present perfect is incorrect

E) who were known to douse
They are still known to douse, past tense is incorrect

A is incorrect because it uses the simple present tense suggesting that action is taking place at the moment, as if we know the Babylonians currently to douse lettuce in oil and vinegar.

B is incorrect. “Are known” suggests we know them in present day, which is not the case.

C is awkward. The verb know is one of a few verbs that doesn’t have a verb-Ing form. Hence C is incorrect.

E is incorrect because of the presence of “who”. Take who out and E would be correct. The presence of “who” in this case signals an essential modifier, implying that we should expect the main action or verb for Babylonians to follow.

D is correct in my view. “Have been known” a present perfect tense depicts an action which took place in the past with its effects still relevant today.

Posted from my mobile device

ANS- B
CONCEPTS TESTED: TENSES, MEANING
A) are known to douse - We don't need present tense here because we are talking about an activity which was conducted in the past

C) were knowing to douse - alters meaning

D) have been known to douse - wrong tense, we need past tense

E) who were known to douse - alters meaning as if the Romans ate Babylonians

C) were knowing to douse - Were knowing? leave tense - not even sure this construction is correct.

D) have been known to douse - Wrong tense - They are still known

E) who were known to douse - Wrong tense - They are still known

Between A and B - Option B is correct <But what is the subject for " have doused"? in option B>

Far from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distinguished history: food historians claim that the Romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.

--
Clearly, the problem is testing tenses. We have a time indicator, 2,000 years ago, so the sentence should refer to the past. In other words, Babylonians were eating salads and using salad dressing a long time ago, and their way of eating has come to our days. So we need a Present Perfect tense.

A) are known to douse

Incorrect. We need Present Perfect.

B) are known to have doused

Maybe?

C) were knowing to douse

Incorrect. They knew for some period of time and then what? Stopped knowing? The meaning is ruined here.

D) have been known to douse

Maybe?

E) who were known to douse

Incorrect. The modifier "who" is not needed here.
--

Now let's decide between B and D. Let's plug both options in the sentence and think about the meaning.

Option B says that Bs are known to have done something in the past.

Option D says that Bs have been known to do something a long time ago, and they still do it these days?..

Answer B is correct, and generis provides a very thorough explanation of Passive Reporting Structure which is tested in this question.

Far from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distinguished history: food historians claim that the Romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.

A) are known to douse as the time sequence is mentioned hence simple tense cannot be used

B) are known to have doused changes the meaning by placing the have before the word doused

C) were knowing to douse the use of knowing to douse also simple tense were is incorrect here

D) have been known to douse: Correct as the babylonians had used XXX... for more than 2000 years and action started in the past and continues in the present.

E) who were known to douse The use of relative pronoun who is not required

IMO D

I chose (B) even though I would prefer a straightforward answer of "were known to douse".

"(M)ore than 2,000 years ago" strongly indicates we should indicate some past action. Keep this in mind.

(A) There is no indication of past action.
(B) By using "have doused", it convey the concept that the action took place in the past. Keep for now.
(C) This one can be easily eliminated: It should be "were known to douse"; alternatively, the progressive tense is not warranted.
(D) This option does convey some past action. Keep for now.
(E) This one can be easily eliminated because it renders a fragment.

Now, which one to choose between (B) and (D)?

I ultimately chose (B) because I do not think D, by using present perfect tense, is compatible with "more than 2,000 years ago." But I may be wrong.

Far from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distinguished history: food historians claim that the Romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.

The meaning of the author of the sentence wants to convey is that the Babylonians started dousing their lettuce with O and V more than 2000 years ago and they still do it.

So, the question is how we describe the past event: to douse --> means they started but they do it now is not warranted whereas to have doused--> means they started it 2000 years ago and still do it.

IMHO B.


Arvind42 To answer your question to have doused is a prepositional phrase and a verb never resides inside a prepositional phrase.

S-->The B's V--> are known

jFar from being a modern dietary invention, salad has a long and distinguished history: food historians claim that the Romans ate mixed greens with dressing, and the Babylonians are known to douse lettuce with oil and vinegar more than 2,000 years ago.

concepts tested
ACtive past : you seem to have forgotten your jacket ( to have + PP). used to give order of events ie have forgotten happened in the past, seem is something happening now
passive past: i am happy to have been invited ( to have been + PP) : passive tone to active of sequencing of event. i am invited by somebody early , for that i am happy now

A) are known to douse - ( this is wrong as it gives present tense, ie as universal fact or truth. then we dont need are known at all, we can direcly use bablylonian douse lettuce).

B) are known to have doused ( wrong grammer passive past needs have been )

C) were knowing to douse ( wrong grammer passsive continuous tense is wrong, its not happening now . and verb ing and to verb wont co exist )


D) have been known to douse( yeah grammatically correct, they are known which still exists from the past . so present perfect. . CORRECT CHOICE.. but not convinced much with this option also if for is used : for more than 2000 years then it might sound better. But generis please do explain in OA is present perfect applicable for just the fact of known or for dousing.. i am confused here. PLUS AS USUAL AS TYPICAL generis . Thanks for teaching this concept (active past infinitive and passive past infinitive) in english otherwise i might not have learned this in my life. )

E) who were known to douse( if babylonians are subject of new IC then it misses a verb for that. so run on or if it is non ic it gives wrong meaning of romans eat babylonians also.. hahahaha cannibals that too xenophobic cannibals.. hahahahha. wrong )

I am not able to understand why option A is wrong. i had a doubt between "A" and "B". Please explain

RichiSharma , I'm almost finished writing the official explanation. I'll post it soon.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

I have posted the official explanation HERE

Arvind42 , the subject is the Babylonians.
The Babylonians are known to have doused lettuce with vinegar and oil.
Are known = the reporting verb
To have doused = PRESENT PERFECT INFINITIVE PHRASE.
This thing is a verb phrase, not a prepositional phrase.
The event is written in the present perfect infinitive, which is consistent with the structure of passive reporting verbs.

(Just below I describe the way that we can tell the difference between an infinitive phrase and a prepositional phrase. HAVE is a verb. TO HAVE is an infinitive. TO HAVE DOUSED is a present perfect infinitive verb.

Even if we get confused about the grammar rules, we can step back and ask, "Who doused the lettuce?" The Babylonians.

If a phrase begins with TO but has no verb, it is a prepositional phrase.
If a phrase begins with TO and contains a verb (have is a verb), it is an infinitive phrase.
Although both begin with TO, they are not the same.
_________________

Hi generis, as always, thank you very much for the excellent explanation. Few things

1. Do you mind providing a few OG questions in which a similar structure is tested? On top of my head I do not remember seeing it before. Well, at the very least I will pay more attention from now on

2. This statement might be a bit offensive to some, but I reckon that the most important piece of information in this question and its analysis is not the Passive Reporting Structure... It is the part that highlights the "fragment trap" in the analysis of option E

3. If one of the answer choices was "Babylonians were known to douse", would it be correct?


Thank you.

P.S. Seems like the author is from Hungary

A. are known to douse -

Incorrectly used present tense although the event/activity occurred in the past

B. I believe this one is without any errors!

C. were knowing to douse - distort meaning

D. have been known to douse - incorrect tense

E. who were known to douse - awkard, don't make sense

Posted from my mobile device