Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of

Hello HMC
You are absolutely right, in this example
a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which

of the Rouen Cathedral is the modifier of series and because of this which modify not the Cathedral but series.

Here is the really cool article from Magoosh about this rule and about this question:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, revised in his studio in 1894, and with the French public receiving it as an emblem of all that was noble about their history and customs.

A) produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, revised in his studio in 1894, and with the French public receiving it
(verb-ed modifier modifies closest noun- here revised modifying RC -makes no sense)
B) produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and which the French public received
which modifies series of paintings & which xxx and which xxxx maintains parallelism
C) produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894, and that the French public received it
here comma+and starts a new independent clause ( it means which he revised in his studio in 1894 and french public reveived don't have any relation)
this is wrong as two actions are inter-related.
also is this sentence correct if we have which xx and that xx (comma removed) ! pls advise
D) painted the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894, and that the French public received it ( CM painted RC -wrong)
E) painted the Rouen Cathedral, revised in his studio in 1894, and the French public received it ( CM painted RC -wrong)

Some time ago, I saw an authoritative chapter on the logical sense of the syntax and semantics of the relative pronoun ‘which’ in a book called the “Sentence Correction Nirvana’ released by EducationAisle. It might help to fix the vexatious problem of the touch rule of ‘which’.

Can anyone explain about this? I wonder whether "produced a series of paitings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and that the French public received"(without comma and without "it") would work. Would you consider this as a correctly paralleled structure?

The use of "that" is problematic. The relative pronoun "that" is used for an essential modifier, a modifier that defines the noun it refers to. However here a non-essential modifier is required - something additional is said about the paintings. Therefore using "which" in place of "that" is preferred. Option B is correct in using "which" for both the modifiers.

As per the correct answer choice, below sentence is correct.


Between 1892 and 1893, Claude Monet produced a series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral, which he revised in his studio in 1894 and which the French public received as an emblem of all that was noble about their history and customs.


Is it correct to use the two or more than two modifiers by connecting them with "and"(comma and "and" in case of more than two modifier)? Are the below sentences correct?

1. Ram, the son of Dhashrath , the husband of seeta and the king of Ayodhya was exiled from Ayodhya for 14 years.

2. Ram, who was the son of Dhashrath , who was the husband of seeta and who was the king of Ayodhya was exiled from Ayodhya for 14 years.

3. Ram, the son of Koshalya and the husband of seeta was exiled from Ayodhya for 14 years.

4 Ram, the son of Koshalya, the king of Ayodhya and the husband of seeta was exiled from Ayodhya for 14 years.

Yes it is alright to separate modifiers (even relative clause modifiers) referring to the same noun with conjunctions. All your sentences are grammatically alright.

First two sentences in which husband can refer to both Ram and Dashrath are not ambiguous?

Official Explanation

Split #1: look at the modifier "revised in his studio" or "which he revised in his studio" --- both of those are correct in and of themselves. BUT, what do they modify? Clearly, the "series of paintings" could be revised in Monet's studio, but the cathedral itself couldn't fit inside someone's studio. (D) & (E) are entirely incorrect.

Split #2: pronoun problem. In (C) & (D), the pronoun "that" refers to the series of paintings, so the appearance of the second pronoun "it" for the same thing is incorrect.

Split #3: Choice (A) has the structure "with" + [noun] + [participial phrase]. The GMAT does not like this construction. If you want to describe a full action, use a full [noun]+[verb] clause. Because of this, (A) is wrong.

This leaves (B) as the only possible answer.

FAQ: Doesn't "which" refer to Rouen Cathedral?

A: This is an awesome question about the use of "which" and what we call the "touch rule." Oftentimes, "which" clauses modify the nouns that they "touch" or immediately follow.

But there are exceptions to the "touch rule." In this case [of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral] is a vital modifier of the noun "series" because it specifies WHICH "series" we are talking about. Therefore, "which" can refer to the noun "series" before the vital modifier.

So (B) is okay and correct.

In contrast, the "which" in (D) MUST refer to cathedral-the "touch" rule applies-- so (D) is incorrect. (E) has the same problem: "revised in his studio" incorrectly refers to "cathedral."

Hi AndrewN, request you to please help in clarifying 2 doubts here.

1. In this below example, "who" in the sentence "who was the husband of seeta" refers to "Dhashrath" or to "Ram"? Since, "who" is touching "Dashrath" noun. And "who" is also forming parallel structure for the noun "Ram". How do we identify which one is being implied?

2. Ram, who was the son of Dhashrath , who was the husband of seeta and who was the king of Ayodhya was exiled from Ayodhya for 14 years.


2. In the same examples: should there not be a "comma" after the non-essential modifier that would separate the noun and the rest part of the sentence? That is,
-> Noun + "," + non-essential modifier + "," + verb
Instead of: Noun + "," + non-essential modifier + "," + verb

For example, the below sentence with comma shouldn't be the correct usage?
Ram, who was the son of Dhashrath , who was the husband of seeta and who was the king of Ayodhya "," was exiled from Ayodhya for 14 years.

Hello, Pankaj0901. I am just as confused as you when I look at the sentence in question below, and I propose a rewrite for the sake of clarity. I will respond in-line.


My initial reading of the sentence was that it was a sort of list of historical personages, and I interpreted the husband of Seeta as Dhashrath. But I am not satisfied with the lack of a comma at the end in an apparent attempt to clarify that Ram was actually the husband. That is, even if I cut out the part about Dhashrath, I would still contain the non-essential modifier within double commas, em dashes, or parentheses:

Ram, who was the husband of Seeta and who was the king of Ayodhya, was exiled from Ayodhya.

The ambiguity could be cut out altogether by rearranging the sequence of information in the following manner (just one example):

Ram, who was the husband of Seeta, who was the king of Ayodhya, and who was the son of Dhashrath, was exiled from Ayodhya.

Provided the reader knew that Seeta was a female name or at least a name that would not be paired with king, the sentence would add much needed clarity.


Yes, as discussed above, a modifying clause or even an appositive phrase on its own will either use double punctuation or no punctuation on the GMAT™ for the sake of grammatical consistency. A single comma should not be used to denote a non-essential modifier unless a period wraps up the sentence where the second comma would be. On the GMAT™, I would expect all of the following sentences to be incorrect:


If I find any examples that show otherwise from any edition of the OG from the past decade, I will let you know. Be careful not to mix real-world grammar and GMAT™ grammar on points in which the two differ. In the sentence about Monet, the two which clauses merely form a compound modifier, and ambiguity of meaning does not enter the picture.

- Andrew

Hey everyone,

It would be of great help if someone explains why E is incorrect?

Thanks,
Prriyanka

Hello, Prriyanka. Since you asked about (E), I will restrict my analysis to the same. How about we look at the sentence with (E) inserted?


The beginning of the underlined portion is problematic because it conveys a dual meaning without one or the other being a clearcut winner:

1) Claude Monet painted a cathedral (just as I might paint a fence); or
2) Claude Monet created a painting of a cathedral

The rest of the sentence offers no clue as to which interpretation is correct, at least not without the test-taker bringing background knowledge to the table. (Presumably, the famous artist Claude Monet would create a painting of his subject.)

A similar issue concerning (E) is the pronoun it that appears at the end of the underlined portion. To what does that pronoun refer? Again, is it the cathedral itself, which seems the logical referent, or an unnamed painting of the cathedral? You have to be careful not to assume that the meaning conveyed is what you want it to be. The only answers that clarify what Monet was painting are (A) through (C), so we would need to look there for further splits.

Finally, the phrase modifier revised in his studio in 1894 is, once again, tethered loosely to the sentence. I guess it may seem far-fetched to revise a cathedral in a studio, but some installation artists work on a grand scale, and the grammar is not helping us here. Notice that by clarifying that paintings were made, choices (B) and (C) fix all these issues. ((A) still places the modifier in a tight spot.) The decision should really be between those two.

I hope that helps clarify why (E), at least, is not the best answer of the bunch. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your insight.. This was of great help

- Prriyanka

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.