Bluegrass musician Bill Monroe, whose repertory, views on musical coll

How is 'Influential On' , Influential to' and 'influenced' different from each other and how to identify the correct phrase to be used?

Hello chesly,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, "was influential on", "was influential to", and "influenced" all carry the same meaning; "influenced" is just superior to the former two, as it is active and they as passive.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

It's important to note that the two options with "influential to" can be eliminated right away because of the subject-verb agreement issues (and the other crappiness mentioned in this post). So we don't even have to waste a second thinking about whether "influential to" is okay.

And notice that we didn't go with (B) over (A) and (E) because "were influential on generations" and "were an influence on generations" are WRONG while "influenced generations" is RIGHT. I don't see any good reason to go with the wordier and less direct phrasings in (A) and (E) when we have a simpler and more direct option in (B). But that just gives us one tiny "vote" in favor of (B) over (A) and (E), and you don't want to overreact to that difference alone.

Is that a good enough reason to eliminate (A) and (E)? I wouldn't say so. But when we combine that little vote with the other votes explained in this post, we see that (B) emerges as the better option.

So, please don't try to come up with a list of concrete rules governing the usage of influential on vs. influence on vs. influence vs. influential to. If you try to turn this into a mechanical grammar test, you're going to overlook the important meaning differences that really matter.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja, AndrewN

to (A):

1. I read in the forum that for lists, the passive form is preferred ( her x,y, and z were impressive vs impressed. Here is the question, with explanation from Bunuel: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-company- ... 54265.html).
2. The 'was also' for me is important because it clearly refers back to the musician. Just 'also' could mean that his repertory, musical collaboration, and vocal style were an inspiration to many musicians. So this is why I would prefer the option with 'was'

These are the two reasons why I prefer (A). Just the 'including seems to be better in option (B).

Could you please elaborate?

Thanks

Hello, hadimadi. It is always a pleasure to be mentioned alongside GMATNinja. I will offer my thoughts on your queries in my own way. Concerning your first point, that other question is clearly a plagiarized version of this one—the answer choices follow the same patterns, one by one—so it is not worthy of study or discussion. Changing a few words does not create a new question. Stick to this thread. Regarding verb tenses in this question, either the active or passive construct could work, so I would turn to another consideration to separate answer choice (A) from (B).

Moving on to the second point, you are correct: was also in the original sentence comments on the musician—Bill Monroe... was also an inspiration... Still, there is a noticeable lack of parallelism in the two elements joined by also: a, b, and c were influential on [noun] and d was also an inspiration to [noun]. In the former, influential is an adjective; in the latter, an inspiration is, of course, a noun. On the GMAT™, I would look for tighter parallelism, as in, an influence... an inspiration. I would mark this lack of parallelism as a doubt, not grounds for immediate elimination. Notice how answer choice (B) follows a parallel verb pathway: a, b, and c influenced [noun] and d also inspired [noun]. A much stronger case can be made for (B).

Next, we have to confront the comma plus that in the original sentence, because it is unusual to see an essential modifier interrupted on either side by punctuation. What is the sentence aiming to convey?

1) whose repertory, views on musical collaboration, and vocal style were influential on generations of bluegrass artists... that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia

2) Bill Monroe... was also an inspiration to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia

At best, the first interpretation makes me wonder why the sentence is seesawing between a main clause on Bill Monroe and a modifying clause. Remember, we already had to seek to justify was also, so if we think of Bill Monroe as element X and the whose clause as element Y, we have two parts of a sentence that seem to be tripping over each other for airtime: X, Y, X, Y... That is, Bill Monroe (X), whose (Y)..., was also (X)..., that included (Y)... There is no reasonable argument that can be made that this sentence conveys the vital meaning in a clear and direct manner.

If we go with the second interpretation above, it begs the question, why does this particular that get special treatment with the comma, when we would expect to see musicians that? Is it some kind of little-known aside or afterthought? The GMAT™ may not be a test of punctuation per se, but if Elvis and Jerry Garcia are meant to belong to this group of musicians, since we cannot negotiate the comma, we would expect to see a non-restrictive which or even who instead. Ask yourself, Does answer choice (B) address and rectify these concerns? The answer is yes, it does. The modifying phrase bypasses the dual interpretation above:

Bill Monroe, whose... generations of bluegrass artists, also inspired many musicians, including Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia

There is no question whether Elvis and Jerry Garcia belong to the group bluegrass artists (this is not a music history course, after all) or musicians. The grammatical structure has taken care of everything.

In short, I have a few legitimate causes for concern in the original sentence, whereas I have none with answer choice (B), so I have to favor the latter. It is not a matter of preference, but of what gets the point across in a clear and concise manner. (Still, looking at my timer data, I spent 1:48 answering the question, perhaps because there was a lot to take in, so it is not as though the question was a breeze for me.)

I will be curious to see what Charles adds to the dialogue. Thank you for thinking to ask for my assistance.

- Andrew

I don't have much to add to Andrew's thoughtful, comprehensive answer. (And AndrewN, the feeling is mutual!)

I'll add a couple of small points on your first question. First, there's absolutely no reason to believe that passive voice is preferred when dealing with a list. Ignore that.

Second, if I have a construction such as: "Curry, Thompson, and Green were impressive in Game Five," that's not passive voice. When we use the passive voice it means the action is performed on the subject. Here, have an example:

"Doncic was dunked on by Wiggins with such ferocity that Jason Kidd's head exploded."

This one is passive voice because the action "was dunked on" was performed on the grammatical subject, "Doncic." In this example, Wiggins -- who is not grammatically the subject of the sentence -- actually performs the action.

While this construction isn't wrong, it also isn't clear why the writer wouldn't use the simpler active construction: "Wiggins dunked on Doncic..."

All to say, Andrew is 100% correct that passive vs. active is generally not a great decision point to use. It's better to rely on more concrete issues.

I hope that helps!

Hi Experts,

I read in the Manhattan sentence correction book that the word 'that' when used as a pronoun is an essential modifier, and 'that' cannot be preceded by a comma.
This was my only reason to eliminate option A. Although I found other things to be crappy in option A as mentioned by the experts, I don't want to eliminate options just for crappiness. Nevertheless, I didn't see any expert mentioning the usage of 'that' after a comma. Would appreciate some insights from my fellow experts.

Yes, that is the traditional norm: when the word THAT is used as a relative pronoun (as in Option A), it should introduce an essential modifier.

This is a pared-down version of Option A:
Bluegrass musician Bill Monroe was also an inspiration to many musicians, that included Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from his own

Here are two plus one reasons to eliminate Option A:

Reason 1
Reason 1 is what you wrote. A non-essential modifier after a comma should not begin with THAT. It can begin with WHICH or WHO (or some other pronouns).

Reason 2
When we talk about people, we should use WHO or WHOM, not THAT and not even WHICH.

Adding Reason 3 Concision
Why say Musicians that included Elvis etc when we can say Musicians including Elvis etc

More about THAT (just for info)
THAT can also be used as a demonstrative pronoun, as in this sentence: That is a healthy activity.
The above is a proper, complete sentence.

Of the three sentences below, only the third is acceptable:
1. He loves to play football, it is a healthy activity.
2. He loves to play football, that is a healthy activity.
3. He loves to play football, which is a healthy activity.
The first two sentences have two independent clauses linked by commas (call them run-on sentences or comma splices). That is a fatal error in the GMAT.

Note
Some words that can be used as relative pronouns are THAT, WHICH, WHO, WHOM.
Some words that can be used as demonstrative pronouns are THAT, THIS, THOSE, THESE.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello Vegita,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of the "comma + that" construction is typically incorrect, however, in some rare cases "that" can be preceded by a comma.

In such cases, the preceding comma must be part of a pair of commas that offset extra information, and the noun that predes the first comma must be one that "that" can correctly and logically refer to.

To understand the rare case when "That" is preceded by a comma, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

EMPOWERgmatVerbal

I am unable to understand what is the subject for the verb "were influential"
is it
Bill Monroe - in this case verb will be singular
or
Repertory, views on musical collaboration, and vocal style - in this case verb will be plural

Rickooreo


The subject for influenced/was influential/were influential is "repertory, views, and style." We can tell because that part of the sentence is all part of a modifier. The main core of the sentence is "Bill Monroe also inspired many musicians." In between the subject (B. Monroe) and the verb (inspired), we have a modifier: "whose R.V. & S were influential." The modifier applies to Bill Monroe, but it contains its own compound subject and verb.

In option B there is a comma between musicians and verb-ing modifier. If verb-ing modifier is modifying the musicians then comma should not be there. And as comma is present so it acts as an action modifier.
Please clarify
Due Regards

Hello himanshu0077,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, since the clause preceding the comma is not an independent clause, the present participle can modify the preceding noun rather than the entire clause.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

That's the word "including". You need to memorize that this word is exceptional: comma + "INCLUDING" is ••NOT•• a comma + _ING modifier.

"including xxxxxxxxx stuff" is actually a prepositional phrase. It's not the right kind of _ING form to make a comma + _ING modifier, because it's NOT derived directly from the VERB "include".
(That verb has a different meaning altogether, in which a person—who is the subject of the verb—makes a conscious decision to "include" somebody or something in an activity/project/collection/etc. This preposition "including", by contrast, does NOT have a subject/agent, because it does not describe "inclusion" as a person's conscious choice.)


The information above is mostly just for completeness. When you evaluate an instance of comma + "including" in a real sentence, you definitely shouldn't think through any of the stuff above (other than "this is NOT a comma+_ING modifier!"). Just verify the following:


The modifier "comma + INCLUDING xxxxxxxx" is correctly used if...

• the "xxxxxxxx" thing(s) or person(s) belong to a certain group or category, and are presented as EXAMPLES of that group/category;

• "xxxxxxxxx" is NOT a complete list of everything/everybody in the whole group/category;

• the group/category is named by a NOUN (or noun+modifiers, if necessary) that is written before the comma.
This NOUN is what's modified by "including xxxxxxxx".

The second condition is essential. "Including" is very specifically meant to introduce EXAMPLES. It is INCORRECTLY used if it introduces an exhaustive listing of everything/everybody in the group.
(If you're going to list everything, you should use "comprising", "consisting of", or some other equivalent word.)

Please confirm that the instance of comma + "including...." in choice B satisfies these conditions. (This should be straightforward.)

Hello GMATNinja
Sir,
I've read whole explanation. It's just awesome, but facing a little problem with the explanation of choice A.

^^ In choice B, as we used verb 'inspired', the 'influenced' perfectly fine to me, but in choice A as we used 'inspiration', then the 'influential' also makes sense to me as in parallelism purpose! Am I missing anything, please?

AjiteshArun
Thanks for the explanation.
So, the core is:
Bluegrass musician Bill Monroe also inspired many musicians, including Elvis Presley and Jerry Garcia, whose music differed significantly from his own.

^^ The word also should have some backgrounds, right? Without doing X, we can't say that we're doing also Y. I don't know how also comes here?

Glad our explanation helped!

Yeah, the verb tenses (which have nothing to do with "parallelism") are certainly consistent within choice (A) and within choice (B) -- and if they weren't, that wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker.

Looking at (A) in a bubble, there's nothing flat-out "wrong" about it... but (B) is a better sentence.