For the first time

[jlucero]

In choice (B) can "which" also refer to "minority" that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state?

In the right setting yes. In this case it doesn't matter because the final clause clearly does not refer to minority or California, but you can have a relative pronoun refer to a compound word, rather than the item in front of it AS LONG AS IT IS VERY UNAMBIGUOUS.

The Statue of Liberty, which is 305 feet tall, ... OK

The Statue of John, who was 6 feet tall, ... OK

The movie about the debate, which was not very popular, ... AMBIGUOUS

[noor_dalhousie]

Hi Ron

In option D "amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago", what does "down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago" stand for. What does it modify? I know it modifies population of white hispanic people. But there is no noun referring to the population of white hispanic people preceding this phrase. Please advise.

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

In option D "amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago", what does "down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago" stand for. What does it modify? I know it modifies population of white hispanic people. But there is no noun referring to the population of white hispanic people preceding this phrase. Please advise.

Thanks!

"A little less than half" is compared to "nearly three-quarters".

[Haibara]

Ron, sorry to open this long thread again.
I'm wondering the primary reason to eliminate choice A. Is it because "which" can't refer to "a minority in California", since "which" can't stand for animated body? Or because "a minority in California amounts to a little less than...." is nonsense? The grammatically correct version should be "the number of minority in California amounts to a little less than...."?

On another note, regarding the OA D，the logic subject of "amounting to..." should be "non-Hispanic Whites", in accordance with the convention that "comma+Verbing" refers directly to the subject of preceding clause. So, in essence, choice D implies "non-Hispanic Whites amount to a little less ..."? Is it correct, without the phrase "the number of " before "non-Hispanic..." here? I think we have a contradiction here, compared to Choice A.

What's wrong with my reasoning? Please help to clarify, Ron.
Thank you very much.

[RonPurewal]

You can say that some specific thing "amounts to" some proportion of something else.

E.g.,
Almonds produced in California amount to almost four-fifths of the world's almond production.

Normally, this type of thing is rare outside of modifiers; if this idea is actually the core of the sentence, then it's easier to write the sentence in other ways (e.g., Almost 4/5 of all the world's almonds are produced in California.)

[RonPurewal]

It doesn't make sense to have "a minority..." as the subject/agent of this modifier. The modifier is specifically meant to describe non-Hispanic Whites, not the general notion of "a minority in California".

[Tadashi]

Hi experts,
I am asking a question about the option A.
A: ...non-Hispanic whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to...

[I know which clause is a wrong modifier in this option. Let's put intended meaning aside and only focus our attention on the grammar rules and structures]

Here is my question:
"non-Hispanic whites are officially a minority in California".

I want to know "a minority" is a singular noun or a plural noun?
If it's a singular noun, why the subject: "non-Hispanic whites", a plural noun, can BE "a minority", a singular noun.

Will the case violate the parallel rules?

ARIGATO.
Tadashi

[thanghnvn]

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in
California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from
nearly three-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from
nearly three-quarters only a decade ago
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a
decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a
decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly
three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it
was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

OA is D but I picked E - can anyone tel me why E is wrong

regarding choice A.
"which..." modifies "minority" and this modification is correct.

the main clause need an adverb/adverbial which show the reason for action/description in the main clause. choice D show this adverb. the main clause dose not need a noun, which is modified by "which..." choice A shows this case and is not the intended meaning. choice A is grammartical and logic but it is distorted meaning. we can differenciate the intended meaning and distorted meaning only when they are put side by side.

[RonPurewal]

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in
California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from
nearly three-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from
nearly three-quarters only a decade ago
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a
decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a
decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly
three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it
was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

OA is D but I picked E - can anyone tel me why E is wrong

regarding choice A.
"which..." modifies "minority" and this modification is correct.

the main clause need an adverb/adverbial which show the reason for action/description in the main clause. choice D show this adverb. the main clause dose not need a noun, which is modified by "which..." choice A shows this case and is not the intended meaning. choice A is grammartical and logic but it is distorted meaning. we can differenciate the intended meaning and distorted meaning only when they are put side by side.

Do you have a question?

Please clarify, thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Here is my question:
"non-Hispanic whites are officially a minority in California".

I want to know "a minority" is a singular noun or a plural noun?
If it's a singular noun, why the subject: "non-Hispanic whites", a plural noun, can BE "a minority", a singular noun.

Will the case violate the parallel rules?

ARIGATO.
Tadashi

There is no issue here.

My wife and I (plural) are a couple (singular).

52 cards (plural) are a deck (singular).

And so on.

[Tadashi]

Impressive.
Thank you, Ron.
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[OliverC630]

regarding choice A.
"which..." modifies "minority" and this modification is correct.

the main clause need an adverb/adverbial which show the reason for action/description in the main clause. choice D show this adverb. the main clause dose not need a noun, which is modified by "which..." choice A shows this case and is not the intended meaning. choice A is grammartical and logic but it is distorted meaning. we can differenciate the intended meaning and distorted meaning only when they are put side by side.

I picked A because I understood "which" correctly refers to "minority".
Could you elaborate why A distorts meaning eventhough "which" has a sensible antecedent?

[RonPurewal]

"Which" can't directly modify "a minority", because it's inappropriate to say "A minority amounts to...".

On the other hand, the comma + __ing construction is perfect here, since "amounting to xxxx" is a perfect clarification/explanation of the entire preceding sentence ("non-Hispanic Whites are ... a minority").

[prepp]

Hi Ron

Sorry to bring this up. As you mention that which can refer to immediate preceding noun OR

noun + prep phrase

Here, can't which refer to :: minority in California thus which is the correct usage in this sentence?

Please explain

Thanks v much

Ron,
In choices A and B what does which stand for? California? can you please elaborate? Thanks

since "california" is grammatically eligible, yes, "which" should be assigned to "california".
that, of course, is illogical, and so "which" is incorrect.

see here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tml#p31162