The first detailed study of magpie attacks in Australia

[thulsy]

Ron has given a detailed explanation for this problem on the Nov 18, 2010 Study Hall (that was really helpful!), focusing on verb tense. I just have one question that is uncovered.

The first detailed study of magpie attacks in Australia indicates ...

I think "indicated" would make more sense than "indicates", since "indicates" means the action is not fixed in any particular timeframe but here we have "the first detailed study", which occurred in the past.
I'm not questioning the correct answer... just want to know how "indicates" work here. Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I think "indicated" would make more sense than "indicates", since "indicates" means the action is not fixed in any particular timeframe

the significance of the study's findings is not limited to the timeframe in which the study itself was conducted, so this is exactly the meaning that the sentence should have.

[p111]

Nice Explanation :)
Tx

[tim]

:)

[thanghnvn]

that relative clause refers to both persons and non person, in general grammar

that relative clause refers to only non person , in gmat grammar

that is why I am confused. I am non native.

Thank you Ron

[tim]

let us know if you have a question..

[gaurav1a2b]

To Ron,
I personally feel that "who were born in the country" in E is wordy and awkward. (It does not include people "who are born in the country")
The participle phrase "born in the country" in C is more concise and apt.
Besides Manhattan SC Guide explicitly writes "prefer an adjective to an adjective clause with be"
[page 214, 5th edition]

[tim]

here's a good tip to keep in mind: if you EVER use the phrase "wordy and awkward" (or anything else that sounds similar) to explain your reasoning on a SC question, you have done something wrong. there is ALWAYS a real reason why SC answer choices are wrong, and "wordy and awkward" is NEVER that reason..

[bish]

I still can't tell why E is not correct (other than it's awkward).. what are the rules that E is breaking? Thanks!

that choice is incorrect because it contains a modifier ("by the time they reached adulthood") that is blocked off by a comma on one side, but not on the other side.

Aren't we doing the same thing in C. as well?

[jlucero]

I still can't tell why E is not correct (other than it's awkward).. what are the rules that E is breaking? Thanks!

that choice is incorrect because it contains a modifier ("by the time they reached adulthood") that is blocked off by a comma on one side, but not on the other side.

Aren't we doing the same thing in C. as well?

It appears that way, but it's the structure of the sentence that is different. Think of the word "that" as a giant reset button in this sentence:

The study indicates THAT people had been attacked

This allows us to split up the subject and verb in the first half of the sentence with those in the second half of the sentence. Now treat these almost like separate sentences and compare where the modifier is placed in C vs E:

C) The study indicates THAT (by some time), people had been attacked
E) The study indicates THAT people, (by some time) had been attacked

Analyzing just the second clause, we have one modifier at the beginning of the clause (ok), and one in the middle of the clause without a second comma to separate that whole modifier.

[ritwik.rocks]

Hi

I have another doubt, which affected my reading of all the answers.

"98% of men and 75% of women born in the country" can be read in two different ways:
1. (98% men + 75% women) * born in the coutry
2. 98% men + (75% women born in the country)
basically, in option 2, it doesn't matter is the men were born in the country or not.

Isn't this an ambiguity that the answer should avoid?

[RonPurewal]

Hi

I have another doubt, which affected my reading of all the answers.

"98% of men and 75% of women born in the country" can be read in two different ways:
1. (98% men + 75% women) * born in the coutry
2. 98% men + (75% women born in the country)
basically, in option 2, it doesn't matter is the men were born in the country or not.

Isn't this an ambiguity that the answer should avoid?

If the meaning is obvious enough, then the construction isn't "ambiguous".

[eleanor.w.cooper]

Is the pronoun "they" not considered ambiguous here? Is it not a problem that the antecedent "men" and "women" are both in prepositional phrases (and separate ones at that) afterwards? Might even be the case the they technically could refer to attacks, men (solely), women (solely), men and women (together), or birds?

Also, could you add either "that were" or "who were" after "women"? (ie "...women who were born in the country..."). Not sure if "who" would be used in reference to a person or if "that" would be used in reference to "percent".

[RonPurewal]

Is the pronoun "they" not considered ambiguous here? Is it not a problem that the antecedent "men" and "women" are both in prepositional phrases (and separate ones at that) afterwards? Might even be the case the they technically could refer to attacks, men (solely), women (solely), men and women (together), or birds?

"Pronoun ambiguity" is not tested on this exam.

If the meaning of the pronoun is obvious in context, the pronoun is fine.

[RonPurewal]

Also, could you add either "that were" or "who were" after "women"? (ie "...women who were born in the country..."). Not sure if "who" would be used in reference to a person or if "that" would be used in reference to "percent".

The birds didn't attack mathematical figures; they attacked people. Thus, "that were..." doesn't work.