Marconi’s conception of the radio

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Ron,

Are there any rules that state that a pronoun cannot reach inside to refer to a "fluffy/modifier/prepositional/possessive"?

Example:
1) Marconi's conception of the radio, ...., it is the opposite.

In this case, can "it" refer to the radio even though it's inside a possessive?

Thanks

[tim]

There is no hard and fast rule on this. *Most* of the time the GMAT will not reach inside a prepositional phrase to find an antecedent, but this should not be relied on unless you are forced to make a guess anyway.

[RonPurewal]

The one place you generally shouldn't find the noun is inside a modifier that's blocked off by commas.

When a modifier is blocked off by commas, the purpose of the commas is to indicate, essentially, that the sentence should still make sense without that modifier (just with less description).
If the noun were within such a modifier, then removing the modifier would result in nonsense. Not good.

I wouldn't bother thinking about this, by the way, unless you have absolutely nothing else to consider and will otherwise have to guess.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Are there any rules that state that a pronoun cannot reach inside to refer to a "fluffy/modifier/prepositional/possessive"?

What is a "fluffy"?

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Ron,

Are there any rules that state that a pronoun cannot reach inside to refer to a "fluffy/modifier/prepositional/possessive"?

What is a "fluffy"?

That's a funny question -- fluffy/modifier. I use it interchangeably. :)

[tim]

It's probably a good tip to remember (both for the GMAT and for life) that if you use a peculiar word with an intended meaning that the general public is not aware of, it is usually a good idea to explain it at least the first time you use it if not the first several times.

This goes equally well for all of you who use abbreviations that have not been established in the discourse. I know you think you are saving time, but when Ron or I must push the question back to you for further clarification it actually takes MUCH longer for you to get your question answered ultimately. The best thing you can do (other than not bumping your own post) to ensure your post gets answered as quickly as possible is to be very clear about what you are asking in your post. Do not use nonstandard abbreviations. Do not ramble on for six paragraphs and then close with "am I right?" Do not mangle your grammar so extensively that we can't interpret what you're saying in the first place.

[jingjiaol257]

In (b), you've actually got an ambiguity. "A tool for private conversation" could be intended to describe "a substitute for the telephone", or just "the telephone".

At the end of the day, though, this isn't really an ambiguity, because both interpretations ultimately lead to the same meaning. (If the telephone is a tool for private conversation, then any substitute for it must also be a tool for private conversation. Likewise, if "a substitute for the telephone" is a tool that enables private conversation, then the telephone itself must also be such a tool.)

Luckily, there's no need to think about any of this, because (b) contains this "which..." that's clearly not parallel to anything.

If you see what appears to be a subtle distinction, ignore it -- and go find the easy distinction it's distracting you from.
(:

hi ron
you say: (b) contains this "which..." that's clearly not parallel to anything.
Isn't "which...." parallel to "a tool for private conversation"? Why do you think that "which" is not parallel to anything?
Because "a tool for private conversation" is appositive modifier and "which..." isn't appositive modifier?
Thanks!

[jingjiaol257]

In (b), you've actually got an ambiguity. "A tool for private conversation" could be intended to describe "a substitute for the telephone", or just "the telephone".

At the end of the day, though, this isn't really an ambiguity, because both interpretations ultimately lead to the same meaning. (If the telephone is a tool for private conversation, then any substitute for it must also be a tool for private conversation. Likewise, if "a substitute for the telephone" is a tool that enables private conversation, then the telephone itself must also be such a tool.)

Luckily, there's no need to think about any of this, because (b) contains this "which..." that's clearly not parallel to anything.

If you see what appears to be a subtle distinction, ignore it -- and go find the easy distinction it's distracting you from.
(:

hi ron
i can not find out the things that appositive modifies in the construction below.

SUBJ+VERB+....+A for B,appositive modifier.

do you mean that appositive modifies either "A for B" or "B"?If difference occurs when appositive modifier these two things,can we eliminate the choice because of the ambiguity?
Or
do you mean we just need to find the right thing modified by appositive between 'A for B' and "B' through meaning but not to eliminate any choice by appositive modifier?
Thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

hi ron
you say: (b) contains this "which..." that's clearly not parallel to anything.
Isn't "which...." parallel to "a tool for private conversation"? Why do you think that "which" is not parallel to anything?
Because "a tool for private conversation" is appositive modifier and "which..." isn't appositive modifier?
Thanks!

Sorry, I don't know the terminology.

They're not even modifying the same thing, though. "A tool..." is the telephone, but "which is xxx" describes the radio. Clearly it's not possible to put two descriptions of different things into a parallel structure.

[RonPurewal]

hi ron
i can not find out the things that appositive modifies in the construction below.

SUBJ+VERB+....+A for B,appositive modifier.

do you mean that appositive modifies either "A for B" or "B"?If difference occurs when appositive modifier these two things,can we eliminate the choice because of the ambiguity?
Or
do you mean we just need to find the right thing modified by appositive between 'A for B' and "B' through meaning but not to eliminate any choice by appositive modifier?
Thanks!!

I'm unable to follow this without concrete examples; the "formulas" are too difficult for me to understand.
Please provide concrete examples. Thanks.

More importantly, this whole thing is almost certainly a non-issue. Please re-read my advice above about "subtle distinctions".

[gbyhats]

Hi dear Manhattan instructors

1. Can you verify my reasoning for this question?

--

Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.

A. Marconi’s conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is

"was as" is wrong

B. Marconi conceived of the radio as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, but which is

"which" is not parallel with the preceding clause

C. Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become

Correct answer

D. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which has become

1. "conceived to be" is unidiomatic
2. Per Ron's post(quoted below) telephone cannot be the opposite of a something? I'm sorry I don't understand this one... can you explain a little more?

"A(n) X, which has become the opposite..." is pretty much nonsense, regardless of the particular identity of "X".
I.e., if it "has become the opposite" of X, then it's not X.

The sentence would have to express that something was intended to be an X but instead became something else. A "which" modifier, attached directly to "X", can't do that.

E. Marconi conceived of the radio to be a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation, other than what it is,

"conceived to be" is unidiomatic

--

2. Are there any more glaring mistakes that I failed to recognize?
These kinds of mistake are "new faces" to me:

1. it's the first time I see "was as" is a fatal error that we will use to strike down choices
2. It's probably also the first time I see the use of idiom is solely used to strike down choices

(I'm sorry if I missed any post that may have addressed my questions. My brain probably stop functioning after 5 pages of reading)

[RonPurewal]

almost all of that stuff is already in the thread.
please read the entire thread. yes, it's long, but it will answer most (if not all) of your questions.

for C, by the way, you're thinking too hard.
C says that the telephone "has become ... a tool for communicating with a large, public audience".
oops, no. that part should be describing the radio.

[rohit.manglik]

Hi Ron/Instructors,

Sorry to bump this old thread. I have same doubt as songxue1205 had. I went through all the threads but still I guess that question is unaddressed.

from what we've seen - if you have "which" following "noun1 + preposition + noun2", then "which" can refer to noun1 only if noun2 is grammatically ineligible. otherwise it automatically refers to noun2.
see here:
post31162.html#p31162

1) In option C, we have "a tool for private conversation that". Why "private conversation" is ineligible noun to be modified by that? i.e. if "that" cannot Grammatically refer to noun2 only then noun1 can be modified.

2) Can we apply above logic of "which" to "that" as well?

In D, ...be a tool for private conversation, a substitute for the telephone, which... i think "which" should modify "sbustitute" or "telephone", am I right?


no, at least not based on what we've actually seen.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION IS BASED ONLY ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN OFFICIAL PROBLEMS.

from what we've seen - if you have "which" following "noun1 + preposition + noun2", then "which" can refer to noun1 only if noun2 is grammatically ineligible. otherwise it automatically refers to noun2.
see here:
post31162.html#p31162

sorry to bump,　Ron, I want to know that in choice C, the correct answer, "a tool for private conversation that could substitute for telephone...", the verb in sub-clause "that" is "could", both none1 "tool" and noun2 "conversation" are agree grammatically with the verb. So as what you have said, does the relative clause "that" "automatically" modifier noun2 "conversation"?? thx~[/quote]

[RonPurewal]

that commentary applies to 'which', not to 'that'.

'that' is MUCH more flexible.
e.g., look at #50 in the OG Diagnostic chapter (any edition from 12th to the current one). in that problem there are 3 entire modifiers between 'that' and the thing to which it's attached, but 'that' is still ok.

[RonPurewal]

this, incidentally, is the entire reason why '___, which...' is so special: because other modifiers DO NOT have the same restrictions on their behavior.
thus there is a trade-off: '___, which...' allows a degree of precision that's hard to achieve with other modifiers, but other modifiers (along with common sense) can deliver a much greater variety of messages.