fameatop wrote:
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.
(A) that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but
(B) that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously with but also
(C) having been cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but
(D) cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, yields strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but also
(E) cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but
Have issues with the use of "that",I have read forums for the discussion about this one.
Although I accept that "evidence for" is wrongly used and "evidence that" is the right usage, some discussions said about the use of "that"
Why don't we need "that" after trenches ?
How do we know that author is talking about "first trenches" or he is talking about the "first trenches that were cut into"?
And for the second "that" used after "Middle East" is there any reason why it is wrongly used other than that it modifies "middle east" ,although it should have modified "societies"
I'm happy to help with this.
This is SC#70 from the OG13.
The opening choices ------
"
The first trenches that were cut ...." ----- this modifies "trenches" with a subordinate clause, a clause beginning with "that". This is perfectly correct.
"
The first trenches having been cut ...." --- participle with a strange tense, not correct
"
The first trenches cut ...." ---- as
fameatop pointed out above, this is participial phrase, also 100% correct. For more on participial phrases, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/participle ... -the-gmat/The difference between this would be like the difference between
(a)
The horse that was traded for an electric guitar was now .....(b)
The horse, traded for an electric guitar, was now ....(a) is a "that" clause construction, (b) is a participial construction, and both are correct.
You see, grammar is complex. You can just memorize a simple rule like
don't drop the word "that" ----- There are two very different "that" clauses to consider.
Category #1:
relative clausesThis is what appears in this sentence. Here, the word "that" acting as a
relative pronoun -- others include who, whom, whoever, etc. Within the relative clause, the relative pronoun acts as a pronoun within the clause, often the subject of the clause. Let's look at (A) from the prompt ---- the relative clause is in green.
(1)
The first trenches that were cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria have yielded ...
Within that clause, the pronoun "
that" is the subject of the clause, the subject of the verb "
were cut."
Other examples includes
(2)
The horse that was traded for an electric guitar was now ....(3)
The regions of Europe that Julius Caesar conquered were not ..... In #2, the word "
that" is also the subject of the clause, now the subject of the verb "
was traded." In #3, the word "
that" is the direct object of the verb "
conquered."
Nobody drops the "that" from a relative clause ----- since "that" is acts as a pronoun in the clause, it always sound terribly awkward to drop a pronoun. Pick any sentence with a pronoun, and say the sentence without the pronoun --- it will sound bizarre and incomplete
Nobody makes this mistake. The
dropping the "that" mistake is
never a concern with relative clauses.
Category #2:
substantive clausesFor more on this structure, read these two posts:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/substantiv ... -the-gmat/https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-idiom ... ieve-that/This is what we have following the word "evidence" in the SC sentence above ----
evidence that ...,
know that ....,
hope that ....,
wish that ....,
believe that .....
hypothesis that .... etc. etc. etc.
Here, the word "that" is followed by a full [noun] + [verb] clause. Examples, with substantive clause in green ----
(4) ....
evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.(5)
The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal.
(6)
The senator said that he will not seek reelection.
In all three cases, what follows "that" is a full clause --- in each case, we could extract the green section, throw away the word "that", and the rest of the green part could stand on its own as a full complete sentence. Here, the word "that" is NOT acting as a pronoun --- rather, it is serving to introduce a full clause. Because the word "that" plays no essential role within the clause, it is
very tempting to drop it --- in fact, people do all the time in casual conversation, and the GMAT always tests this. This is where one has to have one's antennae up, looking for this very predictable mistake.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
Thank you for your explanation.
Can I also get some help to understand the use of "have yielded"? Because the cutting of the trenches happens first, followed by the "yield" of results. Should we be affected by such past perfect tense construction?
11 Jun 2019, 08:34
close
