Declining values for farm equipment and land, the collateral against

Should not we use singular (is) with "Declining values"? For example - in the sentence "Singing many songs IS my hobby.", we have used IS with "Singing many songs".

Also, why is "which" after "equipment and land," wrong here?
IMO Option B can be the right answer. Please help.

Why does "the collateral against which" in option E not modify the entire preceding clause "Declining values of farm and land"?
It's obviously illogical to suggest that the "declining values of land/equipment" are "the collateral". It's just the land and equipment that's collateral.
Declining values also seems to be the main subject.

How can we know that the piece after the comma is only modifying farm equipment and land?

I understand that the sentence used 'declining values' - but isn't this trend of declining values forcing lenders to stop lending? If so, shouldn't we use 'is' and not 'are'? Or are we supposed to see 'values' in there and then blindly assume that it's plural and we need to use 'are' over 'is'

Yes, and that's exactly what declining values indicates.

Notice that in the phrase "declining values", the word declining is an adjective (participle), modifying the noun values.

Since declining is an adjective, it is an attribute/property of the noun values.

Question: What values?

Answer: Declining values.

Here, the meaning is coming out very clearly. Most of it is contextual though. For example:

Eating sugarcane is good for health.

In this case, eating is not used as a participle (adjective), but as a noun (gerund).

The difference between "declining values" and "eating sugarcane" is hopefully very evident: values can decline, but sugarcanes can't eat . In other words, eating is not an attribute/property of the noun sugarcane.

By the way, to use the verb is, we need to make the subject more explicit, something along the following lines:

Decline in values for farm equipment and land....is going to force many lenders...

Is D modifying "land", "land and farm equipment", or "declining values"? Originally thought "land", but given that it is part of a prepositional pharse, I imagine this is wrong. Would really appreciate some help!!:)

Hi HansJK, if your doubt is whether which can modify something in a prepositional phrase, then the answer is definitely yes. There are numerous official examples, with which modifying words in prepositional phrases.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses modifier issues of "which", their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Thanks for that rapid response! So, to judge whether which modifies the subject of the sentence or the object of a prepositional phrase, we have to simply decide what makes the most sense?
Also, can which modify two preciding nouns? For instance: Mike and Simon, which are best friends...?

Nops; which modifies the nearest grammatical eligible word.

An officially incorrect example:

It is called a sea, but the landlocked Caspian is actually the largest lake on Earth, which covers more than four times the surface area of its closest rival in size, North America's Lake Superior.

Official explanation: Because Earth immediately precedes which, the sentence appears to say, illogically, that Earth covers more than four times the surface area of Lake Superior.


Your example is incorrect, because which can only modify "non-persons", while "Mike and Simon" are obviously persons.

Correct sentence will be:

Mike and Simon, who are best friends....

However, if your question is whether which can modify two entities, then the answer is yes. An officially correct example:

Unlike the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, which were capable of carrying sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights, a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.
- which is modifying the shuttle and earlier spacecraft.

Thank you, this is very helpful!

One point of confusion. This is correct according to the OG: "Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumber..."

Is Susan Dickinson not, in your words, the "nearest grammatical eligible word"?

Hi HansJK, in the above sentence, Susan Huntington Dickinson is not grammatically eligible, for two reasons:

i) As mentioned in my above post, which can only modify non-persons, while Susan Huntington Dickinson is clearly a person

ii) The sentence says: "which were". The presence of plural verb were clearly indicates that which must modify something plural (while while Susan Huntington Dickinson is singular).

E is the answer. A fairly easy question once we spot a few things.

"Declining values for equipment and land" ---> plural, and hence should be "...ARE going to force". Therefore, ABC are out.

Now, between D and E. Besides the fact that D awkwardly says "collateral...borrow against" which is redundant, the more blatant issue is the modifier. COLLATERAL modifies equipment and land and hence it must come after the comma.

D is out, E is our winner.

Posted from my mobile device

It sounds like you've answered your own question! Even though "the collateral against which" could technically jump over the prepositional phrase and modify "declining values...," it's fairly obvious that the "collateral" consists of farm equipment and land, not declining values. Why jump over the prepositional phrase to force an illogical meaning?

Sure, there are technically multiple ways to interpret the modifier, but one of them makes a ton of sense and the other makes absolutely no sense -- so it's best to be conservative and look for other decision points. More on that below.




As other users have explained earlier in the thread, the subject is "values," not "declining" -- "declining" modifies "values." Since "values" is plural, we need a plural verb ("are"). So (B) can be eliminated right away.

Eliminating (D) is a bit trickier, so let's compare (D) and (E). The first big difference is that (D) starts with a "which" and (E) starts with "collateral":

• As explained above, the modifier could technically modify either "declining values" or "farm equipment and land".
• Upon reaching the word "which" in (D), the reader has no idea what's about to be modified -- it could be the "declining values" or it could be "farm equipment and land". In fact, even after reading "which farmers use as" the reader STILL doesn't know what is being modified! (Maybe the farmers use the "declining values" to save money on their taxes?)
• Then, finally, we get to the word "collateral", and the reader can figure out that we are talking about the "farm equipment and land", not the "values" -- at that point the reader might need to go back to the which to re-process the modifier.
• In (E), the word "collateral" comes right after the comma -- this allows the reader to immediately figure out that we are talking about the "farm equipment and land", not the "values". As a result, the meaning of the ensuing modifier is clear.
• In (D), the reader has to work harder, since the meaning isn't as clear. Does that make (D) wrong? No, but it gives us one vote in favor of (E) over (D).

Also, what exactly is "collateral"? Well, it's something of value that a borrower owns -- something that theoretically could be given to the lender if the borrower doesn't pay up. That something could be a house, a car, some stocks, a Donald Trump rookie card, or whatever. If the borrower doesn't pay back the loan, the lender gets the valuable stuff.

In (D), something is "used as collateral to borrow against", so at first it sounds like we are USING the collateral to borrow against something else -- we almost expect another noun after the word "against" (borrowing against what?). It's more clear to just say that the stuff IS the collateral -- specifically, the collateral against which borrowers can borrow. The structure of choice (E) indicates that the "farm equipment and land" IS the collateral against which farmers can borrow, and that makes perfect sense -- borrowers borrow against the collateral.

Is (D) absolutely wrong? No, but the meaning is more clear in (E), making it the better choice.

It's worth noting that this question was retired a while back, so I wouldn't lose to much sleep over it.

I hope that helps!

The subject of this sentence is 'declining values', which is unequivocally plural. A, B, and C are out. "which" is modifying "land" in D. Out.

E contains an appositive. Correct.

Declining values for farm equipment and land, the collateral against which farmers borrow to get through the harvest season, is going to force many lenders to tighten or deny credit this spring.

(A) the collateral against which farmers borrow to get through the harvest season, is
(B) which farmers use as collateral to borrow against to get through the harvest season, is
(C) the collateral which is borrowed against by farmers to get through the harvest season, is
(D) which farmers use as collateral to borrow against to get through the harvest season, are
(E) the collateral against which farmers borrow to get through the harvest season, are CORRECT

How to check if its a Gerund or an adjective in such questions?


Gagan

The phrase declining values suggests that declining is modifying (describing) the "noun" values. Hence, declining is used as an adjective here.

The usage is similar to smiling baby, nurturing care, laughing Buddha etc. In all these usages, smiling, nurturing, and laughing are used as adjectives.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses how to distinguish between Present Participles and Gerunds. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

1. in D, why can't "which farmers use as a collateral to borrow against" modify farm equipment and land given that comma+which modifies the immediately preceding entity.

2. If your answer to 1 is that it is not modifying farm and equipment and instead modifies Declining Values, then why and how can we say that "the collateral against which farmers borrow... are" [from option (E)] is modifying farm and equipment and not declining values.

"Declining values" shouldn't be used as singular ? Why are we using "are" instead of "is" ?
I am so confused on how "Declining values" is used in this sentence.
Can anyone please help me?

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma