It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 20:14

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1881

Kudos [?]: 1403 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Premium Member
Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2008, 00:56
Friends,

105A. Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in 'almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology

And OG says, the non-restrictive clause "which...destroying it" is correctly placed next to "emission".

Do you think that "this sentence implies that "which" modifies correctly "emission"?If so, please see more on other OG


105.C
A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

Og says, relative clause introduced by "which" incorrectly and illogically modifies "emission"

The two explaination are very confused! Can you please help me out?

Thanks
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1403 [0], given: 1

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1534

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Re: Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2008, 10:51
In 105C, "called proton-induced X-ray emission" has no clear referent. This, in turn is followed by a non-restrictive clause. To me, "ambiguous referent" itself makes this answer choice wrong.

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2472

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 19

Re: Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2008, 12:26
sondenso wrote:
Friends,

105A. Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in 'almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology

And OG says, the non-restrictive clause "which...destroying it" is correctly placed next to "emission".

Do you think that "this sentence implies that "which" modifies correctly "emission"?If so, please see more on other OG


105.C
A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

Og says, relative clause introduced by "which" incorrectly and illogically modifies "emission"

The two explaination are very confused! Can you please help me out?

Thanks


I see the following flaws:

1. What exactly is "proton-induced X-ray emission"? Is it a technique or air pollutants? So ambiguity is there.

2. Also two phrases ("called proton-induced X-ray emission" and "which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it") at a time are not correct:
_________________

Verbal: http://gmatclub.com/forum/new-to-the-verbal-forum-please-read-this-first-77546.html
Math: http://gmatclub.com/forum/new-to-the-math-forum-please-read-this-first-77764.html
Gmat: http://gmatclub.com/forum/everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html


GT

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 19

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 193

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Re: Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Nov 2008, 13:04
sondenso wrote:
Friends,

105A. Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in 'almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology

And OG says, the non-restrictive clause "which...destroying it" is correctly placed next to "emission".

Do you think that "this sentence implies that "which" modifies correctly "emission"?If so, please see more on other OG


105.C
A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaeology, and criminology.

Og says, relative clause introduced by "which" incorrectly and illogically modifies "emission"

The two explaination are very confused! Can you please help me out?

Thanks


I think OG s wording is getting you confused.
which is placed close to emission in A and the clause beginning with which is modifying a technique.
In C which is placed near emission but a technique is no where near emission. In A which is modifying a technique. C has so many other errors as already explained by other members in the thread.
HTH

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Nov 2008, 15:51
"Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can"
"Which" modifies "a technique" and not "emission"
_________________

Kick GMAT ass

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105   [#permalink] 11 Nov 2008, 15:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Stup question on Modifiers-OG11-105

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.