In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, te

The biggest thing that jumps out at me here is the word "and." Something has to be parallel with the phrase that follows the word "and." And I think we're in good shape: "... one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics." Cool, "first made in 1845" and "now included in virtually every textbook" both modify "an observation about electric current" -- and that makes perfect sense.

So let's keep (A).


The "which" jumps out at me first in (B): "which was an observation..." modifies "one of Kirchoff's laws." That's OK, though we probably don't really even need the phrase "which was." It's not a big deal, but (A) is more succinct because it skips those extra couple of words. That's not a definite error, but it's a mild reason to prefer (A) over (B).

The bigger problem is the parallelism. Following the "and", we have a brand-new clause: "it is now included in virtually every textbook..." But I don't think that the clause is logically parallel to anything. And more importantly: there's no good reason to start a brand-new clause here, partly because we're just trying to describe the observation, so a simple modifier would be cleaner than a brand-new clause.

So (B) isn't a complete disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).


This is a classic comma splice:

• Independent clause #1: "In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws..."
• Independent clause #2: "...it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

Those two independent clauses are separated by only a comma, and that's not cool. (Commas and comma splices are very briefly discussed in this YouTube video on GMAT punctuation if you're curious to learn more about that crap.) So we can eliminate (C).


(D) has basically the same comma splice problem as (C):

• Independent clause #1: "In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws..."
• Independent clause #2: "...it is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

So (D) is out, too.


(E) isn't a total disaster, but it's definitely not as good as (A).

For starters, I'm not sure why we would say something like "...one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current..." First, there's no good reason to emphasize the past tense in this case: sure, the observation was first made in the past, but there's no good reason to suggest that the law itself somehow existed only in the past -- and that's exactly what seems to be happening in (A). Second, the phrase "one of Kirchoff's laws that was an observation about electric current" suggests that Kirchoff had other laws that were NOT about electric current, and we have no idea if that's actually the case.

The other problem is the placement of the modifier "first made in 1845." This is subtle and annoying, but because "first made in 1845" is surrounded by commas (an appositive phrase, if you like grammar jargon), it seems to modify ONLY the preceding noun, "electric current." So if we think about the sentence strictly and literally, it's saying that electric current was first made in 1845, and that's really not what the sentence is trying to say -- it's trying to say that the observation was first made in 1845, not the electric current itself.

So (E) can be eliminated, and (A) is the best we can do.
_________________

B/w A and E. I will go with A.

Removing the middle man:
In 1995 Richard Stallman testified in Patent Office hearings that a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and

(B) laws, which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is
The restrictive WHICH is not matched with LAWS. in addition, was an observation indicates that this observation was in past and no longer exists. I think it is still a law . No referrent for IT in the end. Incorrect.

(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and
Similar to B. namely, it was an is wordy. Incorrect.

(D) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is
No referrent for IT. Incorrect.

(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is
Similar to B. No clear sunject for IS - The patent or one of the LAWS (Plural). Incorrect.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that a colleague of Richard Stallman managed to win a patent on one of Kirchhoff's laws, which is an observation about the electric current that was first made in 1845 and is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Grammatical Construction+ Parallelism + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• Information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• The simple past tense is only used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• Any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel.
• A comma cannot join two independent clauses; such usage leads to the error of comma splice; to correct this error, the comma must be replaced with semicolon or comma followed by a conjunction such as "and", "but" etc.

A: Correct.This answer choice correctly modifies “one of Kirchhoff's laws” with “an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics”, conveying the intended meaning – that a colleague of Richard Stallman managed to win a patent on one of Kirchhoff's laws, which is an observation about the electric current that was first made in 1845 and is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics. Further, Option A avoids the tense error seen in Option B, as it does not employ an active simple past tense verb, such as “was” in Option B. Additionally, Option A correctly uses a comma to join the independent clause “In 1995 Richard Stallman…testified...laws” and the dependent clause “an observation…physics”. Moreover, Option A correctly maintains parallelism between “first made in 1845” and “now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics”. Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “was” to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the simple past tense is only used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option B fails to maintain parallelism between “which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845” and “it is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics”; please remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel. Additionally, Option B uses the needlessly wordy constructions “which was an observation” and “it is now included”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the construction “namely, it was an observation about electric current”; the inclusion of “namely” leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that one of Kirchhoff's laws is an observation about the electric current that was first made in 1845 and is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics. Further, Option C incorrectly uses a comma to join the independent clauses “In 1995 Richard Stallman…testified...laws” and “namely, it was an observation about electric current...physics”; please remember, a comma cannot join two independent clauses; such usage leads to the error of comma splice; to correct this error, the comma must be replaced with semicolon or comma followed by a conjunction such as "and", "but" etc.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join the independent clauses “In 1995 Richard Stallman…testified...laws” and “it is now included…physics”; please remember, a comma cannot join two independent clauses; such usage leads to the error of comma splice; to correct this error, the comma must be replaced with semicolon or comma followed by a conjunction such as "and", "but" etc.

E: Trap. This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “that was an observation about electric current “; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that Richard Stallman's colleague managed to win a patent on that specific Kirchhoff's law that was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics; the intended meaning is that a colleague of Richard Stallman managed to win a patent on one of Kirchhoff's laws, which happens to be an observation about the electric current that was first made in 1845 and is now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Comma Splices" and "Run-ons" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~6 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

It is A.
E has wrong verb "was" for subject "that", which refers to laws.
B also has same problem as E has.
C/D are run-on.

C - 'namely', it was ... - awkward construction
D - ,it is .. creating 'run-on' sentense
E - that restricts the laws and wrongly used here

A, B - left

B - wordy
A - best

OA is 'A'.

Just to add to the discussions:
IMO


(A) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and
(B) laws, which was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and it is
--> Pronoun reference problem. 'It' can refer to electric current/laws/observation
(C) laws, namely, it was an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and --> nonsense
(D) laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845, it is --> Similar to (b). Pronoun reference issue.
(E) laws that was an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, and is --> Modifier Problem. Sounds like current was made in 1865

Thanks

B states that laws which was an observation; laws is plural and was is singular . Secondly, the pronoun it has no antecedent. Does it refer to the observation or one of the laws or the patent or what? Therefore B is ruled out
_________________

Bumping for review and further discussion*.

*New project from GMAT Club!!! Check HERE

The correct sentence:

In 1995 Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics.



Hi GMATNinja,
I'm totally lost-I can't figure out the core of this correct choice (A)! Could you help me to find out the core of this sentence?
Thanks__
_________________

The easiest way to examine the main clause is to temporarily ignore some of the longer non-essential modifiers. The writer does us the favor of setting off some of these modifiers with commas, so we can see exactly what's crucial to the core meaning of the sentence and what's merely providing additional information.

Here's the sentence again, with the longer modifiers in red:

"Richard Stallman, a well-known critic of the patent system, testified in Patent Office hearings that, to test the system, a colleague of his had managed to win a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws, an observation about electric current first made in 1845 and now included in virtually every textbook of elementary physics."

So the main clause here is simply telling us that Richard Stallman testified in hearings that one of his colleagues won a patent for one of Kirchhoff's laws.

Notice the logical placement of each modifier, each right next to what it describes: "a well-known critic of the patent system" describes Richard Stallman; "to test the system" describes why the colleague won a patent; and " an observation..." describes one of Kirchhoff's laws.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hey GMATNinja,
I did the same thing like you to find the core, but the green part from the "quote" makes me confused. Why the the green part is not written by "one of his colleagues" or by "a colleague of Richard"?

I, normally, can't write "the pillar's house"; I must write "house of the pillar". But, i can write: 1/ Richard's colleague and 2/ Colleague of Richard, both. The use of "colleague of his" is absurd to me.
Doesn't "one of his colleagues" or "colleague of Richard' makes more sense than "colleague of his". Actually, the uses of "colleague of his" is somewhat awkward to me.
_________________

In this case, the usage above: NOUN + OF + POSSESSIVE, is fairly standard. Think of common expressions like "a friend of mine." Nothing wrong with that. "A colleague of his" is the same construction.

But here's the broader point: try not to eliminate answer choices simply because they seem awkward. I feel your pain here. The Official Guide is full of explanations in which incorrect answers are dismissed because they're deemed "awkward". The problem with this is that what feels awkward to you might not have felt awkward to the question writer -- or to the random person writing the explanations for the publisher, often a decade or more after the original question was written. Frankly, those OG explanations misuse the word "awkward", and it's incredibly unhelpful.

Instead, try to find more concrete mistakes, such as grammatical errors and illogical meanings when whittling down your options. This way, you'll avoid having to read the mind of the question-writer. More on that general approach to SC in this article and this video.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi,
Can someone tell me how 'first made in 1845' modifies 'an observation about electric current' rather than just 'electric current'?

Posted from my mobile device

varshikolla It's quite normal for a noun modifier to apply to an entire noun phrase, rather than just the last noun in the phrase, as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous. This can include skipping over a prepositional modifier to apply to the preceding noun. In this case, we can be certain that electric current wasn't first made in 1845, so there's no danger of misunderstanding.
_________________

Hi GMATNinja

Referring to the part in the end of your explanation that I have highlighted in bold, I feel that the same modifier issue is also in option A so why are we considering it only in option E? Also, are we not sure that "first made in 1845" can't refer to "current", which is an eternal phenomenon, and thus sure about the fact that it unambiguously refers to "observation"?

Thanks!

The difference is that "first made in 1845" is surrounded by commas in choice (E). In (E) the comma usage leads us to believe that "first made in 1845" modifies ONLY the preceding noun.

Is that a smoking gun? No, but the correct meaning is more clear in choice (A), without the commas.

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

varotkorn Hmm, I wouldn't call that a rule at all--it's a tendency that one observer has noted. There are many cases in which I wouldn't expect to see this followed with "that." A simpler rule of thumb is that we should repeat "that" (or "which," or any other structuring word) when needed to clarify the meaning. So no, I wouldn't expect this to hold with B or even E. We could say "which was X and is Y" as long as our intended meaning is clear. However, we'd need a justification for the shift in tense (do I really need the "was"?) and we would of course have to ditch "it" to have parallel verbs.
_________________

Dear AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY DmitryFarber GMATNinja,

Considering the highlighted part, what's wrong with E.?
(E) laws THAT WAS an observation about electric current, first made in 1845, AND IS

Hi kornn,

1. I agree that we shouldn't ignore the "generally" in that observation about that.

2. There are multiple issues in E. For example, the was in E is unexpected. Whatever they're discussing in this question is an observation about electric current (present tense) now included in every textbook.
_________________