United States Senator Daniel Inouye..

[thanghnvn]

United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the democratic party during his first term, that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of Democratic Senatorial Committee.


a) that included
b) which includes
c) including
d) some of which were
e) among them being

Although the OA is (c)..i do not find anything wrong with option (a)

in D and E, "which" and "them ' can refer correctly to "posts" but the serious problem here is

the posts are vice chair and whip

above sentence is wrong. we can say
posts are ones of vice chair and whip

am i correct?

[RonPurewal]

no. but, fortunately, that's not one of the answer choices.

[charmanineW924]

important:
If used to introduce a partial list of something, "INCLUDING" should NOT be considered an "__ing modifier".
In fact, you should think of the word "including", in these contexts, as though it didn't end with "-ing" at all.

In these contexts, it acts more like "which", generally pertaining to the previous noun.

E.g.,

In gym class we performed ten different body-weight exercises, including push-ups, pull-ups, and planks.

In gym class we performed ten different body-weight exercises, three of which were push-ups, pull-ups, and planks.

Identical grammar.

Hi，Ron，
I am confused about what you explain . You said “including” and ”three of which” are identical grammer,why C is right and D is wrong in this question? I mean,why including can modify “post”,but “three of which ” can not
Appreciate your kind response.

[RonPurewal]

any modifier containing comma + 'which' ('in which', 'from which', 'each of which', 'some of which', etc.), is subject to the same restrictions as comma + 'which' itself is.
(those restrictions are described in this post.)

so, either of the following constructions COULD work:
...posts, which included...
...posts within the Democratic party, which included...

'which' cannot, however, work with what's actually in this sentence.

(in the cited example, 'which' is modifying the previous noun, 'body-weight exercises', so there is no issue.)

[charmanineW924]

I think about this question again ,and I think I understand choices a to d . I cannot understand why E is wrong ,although I know it is awkward . I just want to know the exact grammar involved in this choice.
Can someone help explain it for me ? Thank you .

[tim]

Perhaps the best way to analyze E is just to realize that 99% of the time if "being" shows up anywhere other than the beginning of the sentence, it will be wrong. I could get into the specifics of exactly what the word "being" is doing to mess up this sentence, but that would be far too specific to apply to other questions. Just keep in mind the rule I mentioned above and you'll pretty much be safe.

[aflaamM589]

i have another question.
how "including" modifies "posts", because i thought "including" should just modify the preceding nouns. Besides, the exceptions to the touch rule can't apply to this questions.
thanks in advance

The "touch rule" is a guideline, but, if you think about it for a moment, you should quickly realize that it's not always possible to put modifiers DIRECTLY on the words they're describing. Really, "as close as possible""”not necessarily literal "touch""”is the principle here.

Here, it should be clear that "posts within the Democratic party" must remain in one piece. If that phrase is broken up, it loses its meaning.

I am, however, surprised that "during his first term" isn't moved to the front of the sentence. (During his first term, Inouye was...)
Hmm. Does anyone have a screen shot?

I think doing so makes D also a correct answer,
may be that is the reason.
Do you think so?

During his first term, United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the democratic party , that included assistant majority whip and vice-chair of Democratic Senatorial Committee.


a) that included
b) which includes
c) including
d) some of which were
e) among them being

D)During his first term, United States Senator Daniel Inouye was appointed to several posts within the democratic party , some of which were assistant majority whip and vice-chair of Democratic Senatorial Committee.

[RonPurewal]

no—you don't use "some" for only 2 things.

(in the context of pure mathematics and/or formal logic, "some X's" can technically mean the same thing as "at least one X"—but this is English sentence correction, not mathematical logic. in formal written English, "some" is like "among" or "-est"—only used when there are 3 or more things in the group.)