The Iroquois organized their kinship groups into matriarchal clans,

Their - Symbolises there must be a plural subject/Noun...

Correct answer must be (D) , errors in the other options are marked in red..

Hi, i dont get why A is wrong, i thought it is like "...,members of which (clans) traced their descent from a common female ancestor".
please advise. Thanks.

What is wrong in C. Members of whom. here whom refers to matriarchal clans. is it wrong because it is indirect way of refering to clans, while D is a direct way.

The relative pronoun "whom" can be used for persons only - "of which" could be used in this case.

A. “clans of which members” is a twisted virtually meaningless expression.
B. “with members who” doesn’t give a sense that they are the members of clan.
C. “whom” refers to a person and here we are talking about the clan. So, C is eliminated.
D. This version effectively conveys the intended meaning. Hence, D is the answer.
E. Choice E doesn’t make any sense with respect to the context of the sentence.

D correctly modifies the preceding noun "Clans".

Hi y'all,
Could somebody please explain why C is incorrect? If it is because whom must be referred to people and not to the items -' clans', then by substituting it with whose would correct the error; or it is because of the placement of members after the coma instead of whom?

Cheers

Hello experts
sayantanc2k AndrewN generis AjiteshArun

can you please confirm my POE?

1. can you help us understand why option A is incorrect. my understanding was which is workinas modifier and we can replace it with clans. so
The Iroquois organized their kinship groups into matriarchal clans, of clans members traced their descent from a common female ancestor. i may be wrong but i do not see any problem.

2. is with members who wrong because of it seems like referring to earlier action The Iroquois organized and now is not related with clans ?
3. option C is incorrect because whom can only used for people.

Thanks

Hello kadamhari825,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.

1. The construction "of which members" leads to an incoherent meaning; if we were to replace "which" with "clans" as you have suggested, we would have two independent clauses linked by a comma, leading to the error of comma splice.

2. Yes; you are correct in your reasoning. This construction leads to an ambiguous meaning, implying that alongside certain members, the Iroquois organized their kinship groups into matriarchal clans.

3. You are correct; "whom" cannot be used to refer to "clan", as it is a non-human entity, albeit one that is comprised, in part, of humans.

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

Hi kadamhari825,

That's an interesting question. Let's go through a couple of points first:

1. Relative whose is the possessive form of both who and which. This means that when whose points to a noun before it, that noun could be a living thing or an inanimate object.

2. Relative whose can be replaced by an of-construction, but such constructions are often quite awkward in comparison with whose-constructions.

The important thing about (2) is that there are two ways of looking at that replacement. The traditional view is that we must insert a the when moving from whose to of which.

3. The club whose members...

4. The club the members of which...

5. The club of which the members...

All of these, (3), (4), and even (5), are grammatically correct. People don't normally use the structure we see in (5), but it is acceptable. But while we can't say the club whose the members, is it possible to say the club members of which or the club of which members, without inserting a the before members? I find those constructions a little odd.

Of course, if we're not aware of the difference, we should take a call on which option is better. Whose is both shorter and less awkward, so that's the one we should choose.

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.