In contrast to some fish eggs

[Alice]

In contrast to some fish eggs requiring months to incubate, the Rio Grande silvery minnow produces eggs that hatch in about 24 hours, yielding larvae that can swim in just three to four days.
(A) some fish eggs requiring months to incubate
(B) some fish, whose eggs require months to incubate
(C) some fish that have eggs requiring months to incubate
(D) the requirement of months of incubation for some fish eggs
(E) requiring months of incubation, as some fish eggs do


Why C is not right?

Thanks.

[Alice]

And I think B is not that "parallel" as C

[RonPurewal]

subtle.

if you're a native speaker of english, and especially if you read a lot, you may be able to pick up on the general vibe of "awkwardness" in choice (c). it's just not as well written as choice (b), although i understand that this principle is intangible and therefore frustrating.

here are two non-"awkwardness"-based, mechanical reasons to choose (b) over (c):
1) the second half of the parallel structure says "eggs ... hatch", wherein "hatch" is in the present tense. in choice (b), "require" is also in the present tense, creating parallelism, whereas in choice (c), "requiring" is a participle (not parallel to "hatch").
2) the word "have" in choice (c) creates a slight but noticeable change of meaning (remember that you have to read VERY literally). specifically, it shifts the focus to those fish that have the eggs, i.e., are in literal possession of the eggs. that's not the point of the sentence; the point is just that some fish produce eggs that require months to incubate, whether they "have" those eggs or not.

but, again, this problem is very, very subtle. my advice above all would be to notice the kind of writing that appears in correct answers, vs. the kind of writing that appears in incorrect answers - and adjust your thought processes accordingly.

[rohit21384]

subtle.

if you're a native speaker of english, and especially if you read a lot, you may be able to pick up on the general vibe of "awkwardness" in choice (c). it's just not as well written as choice (b), although i understand that this principle is intangible and therefore frustrating.

here are two non-"awkwardness"-based, mechanical reasons to choose (b) over (c):
1) the second half of the parallel structure says "eggs ... hatch", wherein "hatch" is in the present tense. in choice (b), "require" is also in the present tense, creating parallelism, whereas in choice (c), "requiring" is a participle (not parallel to "hatch").
2) the word "have" in choice (c) creates a slight but noticeable change of meaning (remember that you have to read VERY literally). specifically, it shifts the focus to those fish that have the eggs, i.e., are in literal possession of the eggs. that's not the point of the sentence; the point is just that some fish produce eggs that require months to incubate, whether they "have" those eggs or not.

but, again, this problem is very, very subtle. my advice above all would be to notice the kind of writing that appears in correct answers, vs. the kind of writing that appears in incorrect answers - and adjust your thought processes accordingly.

Ron
wouldn't option b had been better without comma before whose as "whose eggs......incubate" is essential to its meaning.
In contrast to some fish eggs requiring months to incubate, the Rio Grande silvery minnow produces eggs that hatch in about 24 hours, yielding larvae that can swim in just three to four days.

(B) some fish, whose eggs require months to incubate

[RonPurewal]

Ron
wouldn't option b had been better without comma before whose as "whose eggs......incubate" is essential to its meaning.

actually, no, it's not essential. the "in contrast to some" already covers that base.

for instance, consider the following:
in contrast to some other restaurants in the area, Les Jardins only serves beer and wine, not hard liquor.
--> this sentence ALREADY implies that "some other restaurants" serve hard liquor. therefore, if you're going to add that reference for emphasis, you should make it a nonessential modifier:
in contrast to some other restaurants in the area, which serve a range of hard spirits, Les Jardins only serves beer and wine, not hard liquor.

for the same reason, you want commas around this modifier. if you don't have them, the sentence actually becomes redundant!

In contrast to some fish eggs requiring months to incubate, the Rio Grande silvery minnow produces eggs that hatch in about 24 hours, yielding larvae that can swim in just three to four days.

this would be wrong, because now you're comparing "some fish eggs" to "the ... minnow". that's an illogical comparison (you can't compare eggs to a fish).

it may also be a typing error, since this example has no relationship at all to the subject matter of your previous post.

[rohit21384]

Ron
wouldn't option b had been better without comma before whose as "whose eggs......incubate" is essential to its meaning.

actually, no, it's not essential. the "in contrast to some" already covers that base.

for instance, consider the following:
in contrast to some other restaurants in the area, Les Jardins only serves beer and wine, not hard liquor.
--> this sentence ALREADY implies that "some other restaurants" serve hard liquor. therefore, if you're going to add that reference for emphasis, you should make it a nonessential modifier:
in contrast to some other restaurants in the area, which serve a range of hard spirits, Les Jardins only serves beer and wine, not hard liquor.

for the same reason, you want commas around this modifier. if you don't have them, the sentence actually becomes redundant!

In contrast to some fish eggs requiring months to incubate, the Rio Grande silvery minnow produces eggs that hatch in about 24 hours, yielding larvae that can swim in just three to four days.

this would be wrong, because now you're comparing "some fish eggs" to "the ... minnow". that's an illogical comparison (you can't compare eggs to a fish).

it may also be a typing error, since this example has no relationship at all to the subject matter of your previous post.

Yes you are write, it is a typing error. I must double check before posting.

[RonPurewal]

Ron
wouldn't option b had been better without comma before whose as "whose eggs......incubate" is essential to its meaning.

actually, no, it's not essential. the "in contrast to some" already covers that base.

for instance, consider the following:
in contrast to some other restaurants in the area, Les Jardins only serves beer and wine, not hard liquor.
--> this sentence ALREADY implies that "some other restaurants" serve hard liquor. therefore, if you're going to add that reference for emphasis, you should make it a nonessential modifier:
in contrast to some other restaurants in the area, which serve a range of hard spirits, Les Jardins only serves beer and wine, not hard liquor.

for the same reason, you want commas around this modifier. if you don't have them, the sentence actually becomes redundant!

In contrast to some fish eggs requiring months to incubate, the Rio Grande silvery minnow produces eggs that hatch in about 24 hours, yielding larvae that can swim in just three to four days.

this would be wrong, because now you're comparing "some fish eggs" to "the ... minnow". that's an illogical comparison (you can't compare eggs to a fish).

it may also be a typing error, since this example has no relationship at all to the subject matter of your previous post.

Yes you are write, it is a typing error. I must double check before posting.

please do

[Suapplle]

sorry to restart the new thread
Hi,Ron,I have thought for a long time, but I still don't understand the difference between "fish that produce eggs" and "fish that have eggs",please clarify,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

sorry to restart the new thread
Hi,Ron,I have thought for a long time, but I still don't understand the difference between "fish that produce eggs" and "fish that have eggs",please clarify,thanks!

Just think about what these words mean. I.e., think about whether the fish (a) must produce the eggs, or (b) just have them.

I produce forum posts. I have a computer.
This factory produces steel. This factory has fluorescent lights (in the ceiling -- it doesn't manufacture them).
My car produces exhaust. My car has a hybrid engine.
The fish produce eggs. The fish have fins.

Etc.

[eggpain24]

sorry to restart the new thread
Hi,Ron,I have thought for a long time, but I still don't understand the difference between "fish that produce eggs" and "fish that have eggs",please clarify,thanks!

Just think about what these words mean. I.e., think about whether the fish (a) must produce the eggs, or (b) just have them.

I produce forum posts. I have a computer.
This factory produces steel. This factory has fluorescent lights (in the ceiling -- it doesn't manufacture them).
My car produces exhaust. My car has a hybrid engine.
The fish produce eggs. The fish have fins.

Etc.

really nice insight！

Ron, can you help me brief on the following doubt? Thanks in advance

in the whole question, I think what is being compared is time needed to incubate eggs between "fish" and "minnow"

therefore, in addition to the error you mention in choice C

I think choice C has also committed a mistake that narrows the scope of fish, by suggesting only the fish that have eggs requiring months to incubate (using restrictive clause)

[eggpain24]

can someone help me brief on this issue? Thanks~

[RakshithG27]

subtle.

if you're a native speaker of english, and especially if you read a lot, you may be able to pick up on the general vibe of "awkwardness" in choice (c). it's just not as well written as choice (b), although i understand that this principle is intangible and therefore frustrating.

here are two non-"awkwardness"-based, mechanical reasons to choose (b) over (c):
1) the second half of the parallel structure says "eggs ... hatch", wherein "hatch" is in the present tense. in choice (b), "require" is also in the present tense, creating parallelism, whereas in choice (c), "requiring" is a participle (not parallel to "hatch").
2) the word "have" in choice (c) creates a slight but noticeable change of meaning (remember that you have to read VERY literally). specifically, it shifts the focus to those fish that have the eggs, i.e., are in literal possession of the eggs. that's not the point of the sentence; the point is just that some fish produce eggs that require months to incubate, whether they "have" those eggs or not.

but, again, this problem is very, very subtle. my advice above all would be to notice the kind of writing that appears in correct answers, vs. the kind of writing that appears in incorrect answers - and adjust your thought processes accordingly.

Ron,

Just a small doubt.

In option c, 'requiring' is an adjectival modifier, we can just remove that modifier and the sentence would become ' In contrast to some fish that have eggs, the Rio Grande', now the sentence would not make sense right? As we are now comparing some fishes that have eggs to the Rio Grande.

But in option B it is very clear we are comparing some fish to the Rio Grande, this sentence makes much more sense.

Is my though correct?

Thanks in advance.

[Chelsey Cooley]

Paying attention to meaning changes when doing the 'remove a modifier' trick is a dangerous road to go down. What that trick is for, is determining whether a part of the sentence is actually a modifier. If it's a modifier, then you can remove it, and the grammar of the sentence will still be correct. This is useful for determining where a modifier begins and ends:

The scientists who have worked on the Pluto project for decades have finally achieved their goal.

If you were trying to figure out where that 'who' modifier ends, you might try that trick, like this:

The scientists [s]who have worked on the Pluto project[/s] for decades have finally achieved their goal.

'The scientists for decades have finally achieved their goal?' That doesn't make sense, so we must have gotten the wrong end point for the modifier.

But, the only guarantee is that if you remove the modifier, the grammar won't be incorrect. There are no guarantees about what happens to the logical meaning. For instance, this sentence is correct:

The man with the hat is much taller than any woman in the room.

If you remove the modifier 'in the room', the sentence stops making sense.

---

That said, in reading your question, I was struck by something interesting. There may actually be a problem with the use of 'some' in C. When you use 'some' with a noun and an essential modifier, it seems to necessarily mean something like 'some, but not all, of the fish I'm describing' - in contrast to 'some, but not all, of the fish in the world.' Here's an example:

Some dogs that bark annoy me.

This means that out of the group of dogs that bark, some of those dogs annoy me (but not all of them). It doesn't mean that out of all dogs in the world, some of them bark, and all of those barking dogs annoy me. But (C) seems to be shooting for the second interpretation, incorrectly - out of all fish in the world, some of them have eggs that take months to incubate, and it's those fish we're comparing to the other fish. The grammatically correct reading is something like 'out of the set of fish whose eggs take months to incubate, we can compare SOME of them to the other fish', which is odd.

[RonPurewal]

In option c, 'requiring' is an adjectival modifier, we can just remove that modifier and the sentence would become ' In contrast to some fish that have eggs, the Rio Grande', now the sentence would not make sense right? As we are now comparing some fishes that have eggs to the Rio Grande.

if you remove a modifier that doesn't have commas, the meaning of the sentence WILL NOT be preserved.
in fact, this is the whole point of modifiers without commas—they are, in some way, essential to the meaning of the sentence. in other words, they restrict/narrow/qualify the idea they're modifying.

the underlying grammatical structure, on the other hand, will be preserved.

e.g.,
I'm looking for a woman who understands me.
I'm looking for a woman.
obviously these sentences do not have the same meaning—the first one is far more specific. this is the point of modifiers without commas.

[RonPurewal]

conversely—if the sentence's original meaning of the sentence IS preserved with the modifier gone, then the modifier SHOULD have commas (and vice versa).

e.g.,
Having spent the previous few years in Miami, where the weather is warm all year, I found San Francisco intolerably cold.
Having spent the previous few years in Miami, I found San Francisco intolerably cold.

these sentences mean EXACTLY the same thing. the only difference is that the first one provides a bit of extra information about miami, for readers who might not already know.