Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America...

[DinoGane]

This question is from this previous thread:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/in- ... -t499.html

----

#15 Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point combining with her talent for writing to make her one of the most valuable historians of the era

(A) same as above

(B) a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made

(C) a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing, and it made

(D) and this vantage point, which combined with her talent for writing to make

(E) and this vantage point, combined with her talent for writing, made

----

I crossed out A and D because of tense (made vs make). C seems like it has an unnecessary 'it'.

I understand that the OA is E. Between B and E, I picked B because there are other questions, for example this one:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/a-g ... -t556.html
where a noun is used after the comma for clarity. Also, I have not seen many many correct answers that have the form , and (i.e. comma followed by and). In fact, see the paleontologists link for examples of this.

With respect to the paleontologists question and this question, can you confirm when it is reasonable to use the two different forms:
, and ...
, <noun> ...
Is there a "rule"?

[DinoGane]

I think I've figured out the problem. B reads:

... Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point, when combined with her talent for writing, that made her one of the most valuable historians of the era

Which implies 1765 to 1789 is the vantage point. 'When' might then refer to 1765 to 1789 also.

[RonPurewal]

Which implies 1765 to 1789 is the vantage point.

nope.

the noun modifier 'a vantage point' can stand for the entire concept of at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789. the gmat is surprisingly flexible with the use of noun modifiers; check out the correct answer to #79 in the verbal (purple) OG for another example. (i'm not allowed to reproduce that example here, so go look it up.)

you are thinking of the rule for RELATIVE PRONOUNS ('which', 'who', and the like) following a comma. that rule does indeed specify that the relative pronoun must refer to whatever follows the comma - but that rule does not apply to noun modifiers.

'When' might then refer to 1765 to 1789 also.

actually, in choice b, 'when' doesn't refer to anything - there's no time period to which it could logically refer - and that's the main issue with choice b. (if you interpret it literally, as you must, then it implies that (1) sometimes the vantage point was combined with the writing and sometimes it wasn't, and (2) it only made her valuable when it was combined with the writing talent. that doesn't make sense.)

[Guest660]

nope.

the noun modifier 'a vantage point' can stand for the entire concept of at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789. the gmat is surprisingly flexible with the use of noun modifiers; check out the correct answer to #79 in the verbal (purple) OG for another example. (i'm not allowed to reproduce that example here, so go look it up.)

Hi Ron...

center of political events from 1765 to 1789,a vantage point
large concentrations of X in the river Rhine,findings

would it be safe to say...we can remove the middleman for such constructions ???

[RonPurewal]

nope.

the noun modifier 'a vantage point' can stand for the entire concept of at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789. the gmat is surprisingly flexible with the use of noun modifiers; check out the correct answer to #79 in the verbal (purple) OG for another example. (i'm not allowed to reproduce that example here, so go look it up.)

Hi Ron...

center of political events from 1765 to 1789,a vantage point
large concentrations of X in the river Rhine,findings

would it be safe to say...we can remove the middleman for such constructions ???

if you're calling the parts you italicized 'middlemen', then, no.
no, and no.

those aren't middlemen; those are part of the main clause!
the modifier is the part starting with 'a vantage point...' or 'findings...'. you can just lop that part off the end of the sentence and you'll be left with the main clause (which is a sentence in its own right), although of course that won't help if the modifier itself is the issue.

[kevinluocw]

in the original setence, 'vantage point...' serves as modifier, and E make the 'vantage point..' parallel to the main clause, is it a shift of the meaning?

Is A wrong for 'combining' ?

[Nishant.Chandra]

Which implies 1765 to 1789 is the vantage point.

nope.

the noun modifier 'a vantage point' can stand for the entire concept of at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789. the gmat is surprisingly flexible with the use of noun modifiers; check out the correct answer to #79 in the verbal (purple) OG for another example. (i'm not allowed to reproduce that example here, so go look it up.)

Ron-- I agree that apposisitives/ noun modifier typically modify the closest noun they touch. Atleast this is what is taught in Manhattan Gmat SC Guide. However, as is evident from this example and from OG Verbal Supplement (Purple) SC 79, GMAT is suprisingly flexible with the use of noun modifiers.

But I believe that in the above sentence noun "a vantage point" modifies the entire previous clause "Mercy was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1798" not just the object of preposition "at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789".

As such, in this particular example, it works as freer adverbial modifier (, +ING) that modify the previous clause.

Similarly, in the below sentence (which mimics the grammar of OG Verbal Supplement SC 79 but the names and content are changed as we are not allowed to reproduce or discuss them)

Scuba divers have observed large concentration of gold and silvers deposits in sediments of Green Sea, findings consistent with the hypothesis of ancient treasure in the area.

Here the noun "findings" modifies the entire clause "Scuba divers have observed large concentration of gold and silvers deposits in sediments of Green Sea" not just "large concentration of gold and silvers deposits"

Please tell me whether I am correct and GMAT date is quite near?

[RonPurewal]

Ron-- I agree that apposisitives/ noun modifier typically modify the closest noun they touch. Atleast this is what is taught in Manhattan Gmat SC Guide. However, as is evident from this example and from OG Verbal Supplement (Purple) SC 79, GMAT is suprisingly flexible with the use of noun modifiers.

they are "flexible" in this way when the noun modifiers are ABSTRACT nouns (such as "findings" and "vantage point"). they are NOT similarly flexible when the noun modifiers are CONCRETE nouns.

i posted extensively about this concept here:
post35386.html#p35386

[zhaoyu0319]

Hey guys,

Is A) wrong because it uses "combining"? It sounds to me that a vantage point performs the action that combines with her talent. Can anyone confirm my reasoning?

Thank you,
Al

[tuftsv]

Hey guys,

Is A) wrong because it uses "combining"? It sounds to me that a vantage point performs the action that combines with her talent. Can anyone confirm my reasoning?

Thank you,
Al

hi, i have the same question with you.
i am just wondering whether "combine" should be used the same as "compare." When in comparison two things, we have to use passive voice.

if so, if choice A changes to- "a vantage point combined with her talent for writing to make", will A be correct?
thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Hey guys,

Is A) wrong because it uses "combining"? It sounds to me that a vantage point performs the action that combines with her talent. Can anyone confirm my reasoning?

Thank you,
Al

absolutely correct. very well done -- this is an issue of meaning, not an issue of grammar.

hi, i have the same question with you.
i am just wondering whether "combine" should be used the same as "compare." When in comparison two things, we have to use passive voice.

nope -- not a grammar issue. this is entirely a function of meaning. see the post quoted above yours for an excellent explanation of the difference.

[pradeepchandy]

I read somewhere that usage of "this" is typically wrong on GMAT. So I did not choose E

Would C be correct if it was wrtten as

. Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point that combined with her talent for writing made her one of the most valuable historians of the ear

[RonPurewal]

I read somewhere that usage of "this" is typically wrong on GMAT. So I did not choose E

it's incorrect to use "this" as a STANDALONE PRONOUN. i.e., you cannot write something like "this, combined with her talent for writing, made her..."

however, "this" as an ADJECTIVE (the way in which it is used here, in front of the noun "vantage point") is just fine, and is quite exceedingly common.

Would C be correct if it was wrtten as

. Because she knew many of the leaders of colonial America and the American Revolution personally, Mercy Otis Warren was continually at or near the center of political events from 1765 to 1789, a vantage point that, combined with her talent for writing, made her one of the most valuable historians of the ear

if you add the commas in the red locations, then this version is acceptable.
without those commas, it's an unreadable modifier -- the first version that will strike the reader is "that combined", i.e., combined will be mistakenly read as a verb whose subject is "vantage point". if the commas are added, then there is no danger of this misreading.

[madhavbatra]

Hey guys,

Is A) wrong because it uses "combining"? It sounds to me that a vantage point performs the action that combines with her talent. Can anyone confirm my reasoning?

Thank you,
Al

absolutely correct. very well done -- this is an issue of meaning, not an issue of grammar.

hi, i have the same question with you.
i am just wondering whether "combine" should be used the same as "compare." When in comparison two things, we have to use passive voice.

nope -- not a grammar issue. this is entirely a function of meaning. see the post quoted above yours for an excellent explanation of the difference.

Hi Ron, doesn't option A have a grammatical issue as well? It uses the present participle "combining", which I reckon is incorrect. Can we eliminate choice A solely based on the usage of combining?

[vjsharma25]

I think participles doesn't have tense associated with them. They take the tense based on the context. Ron has explained the concept in one of the post.Please read http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post26889.html?hilit=participle%20writing%20tense#p26889